Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Equator Bottlers Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld an employee's dismissal because refusing both a breathalyser and a blood test counted as insubordination.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Grievant's refusal to undergo a breathalyser test and a blood test amounted to insubordination justifying summary dismissal
- 2.Whether the Respondent substantiated the allegations of intoxication and insubordination
- 3.Whether the procedure under section 41 of the Employment Act was followed
- 4.Whether the termination was fair and justified under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
- 5.Whether the Grievant is entitled to the reliefs sought
Key legal issues
#Whether refusal to submit to alcohol testing amounted to insubordination
Yes - the refusal to take both the breathalyser and the alternative blood test was insubordination and grounds for disciplinary action
The Grievant declined the breathalyser citing an unhygienic straw and also declined a blood test at a clinic. The Court held that a reasonable employee with hygiene concerns would accept the alternative test. Declining both reasonable directives constituted insubordination, making the Grievant the author of his own misfortune.
Whether procedural fairness under section 41 was satisfied
Yes - show cause, disciplinary hearing and appeal satisfied section 41
The Grievant was issued a show-cause letter, responded to the allegations, attended a disciplinary hearing, and exercised a right of appeal which was heard and dismissed. The Court found these steps met the fair hearing requirements of section 41 of the Employment Act.
Whether the termination was substantively fair under sections 43 and 45
Yes - the termination was fair and justified
Having found the refusal to obey lawful directives to be insubordination, and given the procedural compliance, the Court held the employer satisfied the substantive justification requirements, leaving dismissal of the claim as the only recourse.
Legal principles established
#- An employee's refusal to undergo a reasonable alcohol or blood test directed by the employer constitutes insubordination warranting disciplinary action
- Where an employee objects to one testing method on hygiene grounds, he is expected to accept a reasonable alternative test
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
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 and Labour Relations Court Act over unfair termination dispute
Relief refused
#Notice pay of Kshs. 46,351/-
Summary dismissal for gross misconduct disentitles the employee to notice pay
Compensation of 12 months' salary (Kshs. 556,212/-), 13 days' pay and accrued leave pay
Termination was fair and justified; the dismissal was lawful
Certificate of service
Not addressed in the disposition as the suit was dismissed
Costs
The suit is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
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.
An employee who declines to take reasonable directions of the employer insubordinates the employer.
If the breathalyser straw was dirty, it would be expected that the employee would accept to undertake the next alternative test.
the employer satisfied the requirements of fair hearing under section 41 and the termination is deemed to be fair and justified in terms of sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
The suit being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#Certificate of unresolved dispute dated 12th April 2024 predates the dismissal of 13th August 2024
Reply to Statement of Claim dated 8th March 2026 but documents dated 14th July 2026 produced at hearing
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers v Equator Bottlers Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E159 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2713/eng@2026-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.