Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Kenya Tea Development Agency (Management Services) Limited (Ndima Tea Factory Company Limited (Cause E016 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1465 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a tea factory employee over Kshs.4 million after finding he was fired without a fair hearing or valid reason.
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 was employed by the respondent.
- 2.Whether the termination of the grievant's contract of employment was unfair and unlawful.
- 3.Whether the reliefs sought are merited.
Key legal issues
#Whether the grievant was employed by the respondent
The court found the grievant was an employee of the respondent despite the respondent's claim that he was employed by Ndima Tea Factory Company Limited, a separate legal entity.
The court found the CBA indicated the tea factories were managed by the respondent; minutes of 14th June 2022 referred the claimant's case to the respondent's HR; and the termination letter was written by the respondent's Group General Manager HR & Administration. The author of that letter never testified. On a balance of probability, the employment relationship with the respondent was established.
Whether the reason for termination was valid
No valid reason — the grievant was dismissed for an offence (failure to collect tea at Nguguine) which had been dropped, was never the subject of the disciplinary hearing, and on which no farmer testified; the offence actually charged (rubber band on weighing scale) had gaps in evidence and further investigation recommended but never done.
The termination letter cited failure to buy green leaf at Nguguine, but that charge had been dropped after the grievant's response and was never pursued at the disciplinary hearing. The charge actually heard (weighing scale tampering) produced evidence gaps and a recommendation for further investigation that was never undertaken. The disciplinary committee even acquitted the grievant, and RW2 admitted dismissal was because farmers rejected him, though no farmer testified. Under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act the termination was unfair.
Whether a fair procedure was followed
No fair procedure — the grievant was dismissed for an offence for which he was never accorded a hearing as contemplated under section 41 of the Employment Act; the suspension was also unreasonably long.
The grievant was charged with disrespect to farmers by show cause letter, responded denying the offence, but no suspension or disciplinary hearing followed on that charge. He was instead charged with a different offence which went through a hearing. He was ultimately dismissed for the abandoned offence without a hearing, contrary to section 41. The one-year suspension on half salary was also unreasonably long and attributable to investigations never done, not conciliation.
Whether the reliefs sought are merited
Partially merited — compensation of 12 months' gross salary for unfair termination, two months' salary in lieu of notice, gratuity for 31 years and salary arrears for the half-salary suspension period awarded; other prayers rejected.
Given 31 years of service without a warning letter, the court awarded the maximum 12 months' gross salary compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act. Two months' notice pay was awarded under clause 15 of the CBA. Gratuity was awarded at 30 days' basic pay per completed year under clause 16 of the CBA for 31 years. Salary withheld during suspension (half salary for 12 months) was awarded per the pay slips. Remaining prayers failed for lack of particulars, evidence, or being covered by the compensatory damages.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employer charges an employee by a show cause letter and the employee responds denying the offence, the employer must invite the employee to a disciplinary hearing within a reasonable time, failing which the employee is presumed to have defended himself fully and the disciplinary process is closed
- An employer cannot dismiss an employee for an offence which was never established during the disciplinary hearing or which it had abandoned
- A finding of guilt on insufficient evidence after a committee has noted gaps and recommended further investigation is irrational and capricious
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the claimant against the respondent for: Notice Kshs.147,990.00; Compensation Kshs.887,940.00; Gratuity Kshs.2,293,845.00; Salary arrears Kshs.470,131.20 — total Kshs.4,122,047.4 (the award is subject to statutory deductions)
- 2.The claimant is awarded costs plus interest at court rates from the date of filing suit, the award being predominantly based on a liquidated claim
- 3.Judgment delivered via Teams video conferencing with parties' consent, waiving compliance with Rule 28(3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules
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, Labour Relations Act and the Constitution (first-instance labour dispute)
Relief refused
#Reinstatement (prayer 1)
Alternative reliefs awarded instead; reinstatement not granted as court awarded compensation and terminal benefits
Damages for unlawful suspension and other prayers
Rejected for lack of particulars, evidence, being alternative, or covered by compensatory damages
Costs
The claimant is awarded costs plus interest at court rates from the date of filing suit, the award being predominantly based on a liquidated claim
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.
It follows that the grievant was dismissed for an offence which was never established during the disciplinary hearing.
Turning around and finding the grievant guilty on the insufficient evidence was irrational and capricious.
I find that the grievant was dismissed for the offence of disrespecting farmers without being accorded a fair hearing as contemplated under section 41 of the Employment Act.
the employer must invite the employee to a disciplinary hearing within a reasonable time as contemplated under section 41 of the Employment Act and in default the employee will be presumed to have defended himself fully and the disciplinary process closed.
Consequently, I enter judgment for the claimant against the respondent as follows: a. Notice………………………………………Kshs.147,990.00 b. Compensation……………………………….Kshs.887,940.00 c. Gratuity……………………………………..Kshs.2,293,845.00 d. Salary arrears…………………………………Kshs.470,131.20 Kshs.4,122,047.4 e. The award is subject to statutory deductions. f. The claimant is awarded costs plus interest at court rates from the date of filing suit the award is pre-dominantly based on a liquidated claim.
Issues in the judgment
#Termination letter and court recitals refer to failure to buy 'coffee' at Nguguine Centre in one passage, whereas the entire proceedings concern green tea leaf
Total award figure of Kshs.4,122,047.4 does not precisely match the sum of the four heads itemised
Gratuity computation (31 years x Kshs.73,995) stated as Kshs.2,293,845 does not arithmetically follow from the stated formula, and the monthly salary is given as Kshs.73,920 in the pleadings but Kshs.73,995 in the award
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Kenya Tea Development Agency (Management Services) Limited (Ndima Tea Factory Company Limited (Cause E016 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1465 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 20th June 2023 (ELRC, Nyeri). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1465/eng@2025-05-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.