Cheruiyot v Lipton Teas and Infusions Plc (Formerly Ekatera Tea Kenya Plc) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E016 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2191 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a manager's dismissal for sexual harassment, ruling the employer followed a fair process and proved valid reasons.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Was the Claimant's termination supported by valid reasons?
- 2.Is the Claimant entitled to his prayers as per the amended claim as well as the costs of the suit?
Key legal issues
#Substantive justification for summary dismissal
Valid reasons existed: sexual harassment of employees, interference with witnesses (admitted), and irregular recruitment
The court found investigations by a professional investigator and a detailed disciplinary hearing proved the allegations on a balance of probability. The summary dismissal letter set out valid reasons including sexual harassment of Caren Chepngetich and a protected witness, contacting potential witnesses during investigations, and irregularly recruiting two employees. Reliance was placed on Section 43(2) requiring the employer to prove reasons it believed to exist.
Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
The Respondent complied with Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
The Claimant was issued a notice to show cause, responded, was invited to a disciplinary hearing, was free to bring witnesses (and chose none), was comfortable to proceed, and the minutes were produced and appended by him. He appealed and the appeal was considered and upheld, and he was paid final dues and issued a certificate of service.
Whether the conduct amounted to sexual harassment under Section 6(1) of the Employment Act
Yes - the Claimant's language towards witnesses 1 and 2 had clear sexual connotations
The court applied Section 6(1)(a)-(d) of the Employment Act and the Ooko authority on sexual harassment. It held that although sexual harassment is secretive and rarely has eyewitnesses, the Claimant's conduct toward Caren and the protected witness met the statutory definition, and interference with investigations was admitted by the Claimant himself.
Legal principles established
#- Fairness of termination requires both substantive justification and procedural fairness
- Sexual harassment undermines the victim's dignity at work and lack of intent is no defence
- By its secretive nature, sexual harassment need not be proved by eyewitnesses; sexual language with clear connotations suffices
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed and the Claimant's prayers are declined
- 2.Each party to meet their respective costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (claim for unfair termination under Section 45); Article 47 of the Constitution invoked by the Claimant
Relief refused
#Declaration that the termination was unconstitutional, unfair and unlawful
Respondent proved valid reasons and procedural fairness
Reinstatement or Kshs. 15,000,000 compensation for unfair dismissal
Claim not proved; termination was substantively and procedurally fair
Kshs. 67,288,800 loss of future earnings, exemplary and general damages
Dismissal was justified; damages claims fell with the unsuccessful claim
Costs
Each party to meet their respective costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The comprehensive investigations by a professional investigator and the very detailed disciplinary meeting the Claimant was taken through by the Respondent’s top team convinces the court that the Respondents complied with Section 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
The reasons set out in the summary dismissal letter by the Respondent have set out valid reasons for summary dismissal of the Claimant.
The court has considered also the Claimant’s evidence and submissions but finds the evidence by the Respondent has been proved on balance of probability. Therefore, the court has to hold that the Claimant has not proved a case of unconstitutional, unfair and unlawful dismissal.
As for costs the court will exercise its discretion and order each party to meet their respective costs. Orders accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#Date of dismissal letter given inconsistently as 8th May 2023 and 4th May 2023
Dates of employment and confirmation inconsistent with pleading dates
Number of witnesses the Claimant was told to invite stated as two, though invitation referenced a witness
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cheruiyot v Lipton Teas and Infusions Plc (Formerly Ekatera Tea Kenya Plc) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E016 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2191 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Employment Cause arising from Memorandum of Claim dated 11th September 2023 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2191/eng@2025-07-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.