Kenya Petroleum Workers Union v Proto Energy Limited (Cause E348 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2497 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled an employer's anonymous letter wasn't enough to justify firing a worker, awarding him over Kshs 214,000.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the Claimant Union
The Claimant Union had locus standi because the Grievant was its member at the time of filing suit, per Rule 63(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
The Grievant's membership card showed he joined the Claimant Union on 4th July 2021, before his termination on 5th July 2021, and no evidence discounted continued membership. Rule 63(1) permits trade unions to represent members in suits. His prior membership of a different union (KEWU) during employment was held to be irrelevant to locus at filing.
Fair and valid reason for termination
The Respondent failed to prove valid reasons; the termination was not for a fair and valid reason
Under Sections 43(1) and 45(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Act, the employer had to prove reasons related to the Grievant's conduct. The only basis was an undated anonymous letter alleging illegal union recruitment, which said nothing about incitement, go-slow or strike. No investigations were alluded to, and the allegations were unsupported by any evidence.
Procedural fairness
The procedure was unfair: the notice to show cause period was under 24 hours, the appeal was ignored, and no Certificate of Service was issued
Section 45(2)(c) and 41(1) of the Employment Act require adequate notice and an opportunity to be defended. The Court of Appeal in Nebert Mandala Ombapa v ICPAK was cited on the need for sufficient time. The Grievant had less than 24 hours to respond, the Respondent failed to consider his appeal despite pleading it had, and Section 51 obligations on a Certificate of Service were unmet.
Reliefs
Seven months' gross salary as compensation plus the unlawfully deducted Kshs 25,742; notice pay, overtime and house allowance claims declined
Having found both substantive and procedural unfairness, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 49 to award seven months' salary. The absenteeism deduction was unproven. Notice pay was already paid, overtime appeared on the payslip, and the consolidated salary covered house allowance.
Legal principles established
#- A trade union has locus standi to sue on behalf of a member provided membership subsists at the time of filing suit, irrespective of the union the employee belonged to during employment
- The employer bears the evidential burden of proving fair and valid reasons for termination under Sections 43(1) and 45(2) of the Employment Act, and mere suspicion or an anonymous letter will not suffice
- An employer who notifies an employee of a right of appeal must consider the appeal; failure to do so renders the termination procedurally unfair under Section 45(5)(a) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Grievant's employment was unfair and unlawful
- 2.Compensatory damages of Kshs 189,000.00 equivalent to seven (7) months of the Grievant's last gross salary
- 3.Kshs 25,742.00 for the deduction effected from the Grievant's salary as per his July 2021 payslip
- 4.Total award of Kshs 214,742.00 with interest at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 5.The Respondent to bear the costs of the suit
- 6.The Respondent to issue the Grievant with a Certificate of Service within 14 days from the date of Judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 (Rule 63(1))
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Petroleum Workers Union v Proto Energy Limited (Cause E348 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2497 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E348 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2497/eng@2025-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.