Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v Ekatera Tea Kenya Plc (Cause E016 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1880 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a worker's summary dismissal for theft but still ordered the employer to pay him gratuity for his 11 years of service.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the summary dismissal
Procedure was fair and met the minimum statutory standards under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act.
The Grievant was issued a show-cause letter, replied, was invited to a disciplinary hearing with notice of his right to be accompanied, attended with a shop steward, called and cross-examined witnesses including Happiness Kwamboka, and his appeal was considered and declined. The Court found this satisfied the minimum statutory standards of fairness.
Substantive validity of the reason for dismissal
Termination was based on valid reason under Sections 43, 44 and 45; the Grievant stole fertilizer and fled when stopped for a search.
The Grievant's explanation that he ran after a rabbit was rejected as a lie. Security supervisor Joseph Keragori and guard Kipkemoi Sang, corroborated by Happiness Kwamboka, confirmed the Grievant fled leaving a bag containing 3.9 kgs of fertilizer and gloves. The Court held he committed an offence against the Respondent, breached the CBA, the code of business principles, and the implied terms of trust and confidence.
Remedies despite fair dismissal
Although dismissal was fair, it was not just and equitable to deprive the Grievant of recognition for 11 years of service; gratuity of Kshs. 216,180 awarded.
Section 45para 4[b] requires adherence to justice and equity; Section 18para 4 requires that summarily dismissed employees be paid accrued benefits, a provision superseding the CBA. The Respondent paid only Kshs. 23,226 (final salary) after at least 11 complete years. The Court reduced the summary dismissal to regular termination for purposes of gratuity.
Legal principles established
#- Employees summarily dismissed for just cause are nonetheless entitled to their accrued benefits; Section 18para 4 of the Employment Act supersedes the CBA.
- Even where gross misconduct justifies summary dismissal, the employer must adhere to principles of justice and equity under Section 45para 4[b], including recognising years of service.
- An employer may surcharge a dismissed employee for loss from the salary for days worked rather than expropriating the employee's entire accrued service benefits.
Court orders
#- 1.Declared that the Grievant was summarily dismissed fairly and lawfully
- 2.Summary dismissal reduced to regular termination; Respondent to pay the Grievant gratuity under clause 32[a] of the CBA, computed at 22 days' salary for 11 complete years of service, at Kshs. 216,180
- 3.No order on the costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (Sections 41, 43, 44, 45 and 18[4] applied)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v Ekatera Tea Kenya Plc (Cause E016 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1880 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1880/eng@2025-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.