Koech v Ekatera Tea Kenya PLC (Cause E029 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1995 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a long-serving manager's unfair dismissal claim because his employer proved both a genuine reason for firing and a fair disciplinary process.
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 Respondent followed due process in terminating the Claimant
- 2.If (i) above is in the negative, whether the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought
- 3.Who should bear costs of the suit?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent had valid and justifiable reasons for the summary dismissal
The court found the reasons reasonable and valid under section 45(1) and (2)
The Claimant, as Maintenance Manager, was responsible for boiler and fleet maintenance. A May 2023 inspection report flagged an abnormality in the JTA Boiler ID fan, which broke down for six hours in August 2023; vehicles also went unrepaired. The court held these reasons passed the validity test, applying the partly subjective test in Kenya Power & Lighting Co Ltd v Aggrey Lukorito Wasike.
Whether the Respondent followed a fair procedure under sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
Procedure was fair: two show cause notices, responses considered, and a disciplinary hearing attended with a representative
The Claimant was informed of the charges via two notices to show cause, responded to both, and attended a disciplinary hearing on 5 September 2023 accompanied by Bernard Rono, whose presence and signature on the minutes the court noted. This satisfied the requirements of section 41 and the Chitavi ingredients of procedural fairness.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to pass the fairness test, it must be shown that there was not only substantive justification for the termination but also procedural fairness
- The test under section 43 of the Employment Act is partly subjective; an employer need only prove reasons it genuinely believed to exist
Court orders
#- 1.The Claimant's claim is dismissed
- 2.Each party will meet their costs of the suit
- 3.The Claimant to be given his certificate of service within 30 days
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Employment Act)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the termination was unfair and/or unlawful
Court found reasons valid and procedure fair
Service pay of Kshs.2,076,564
Claim dismissed in its entirety
Twelve months' salary compensation for unfair termination
Claim dismissed in its entirety
General, punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages
Claim dismissed in its entirety
Certificate of service claim framed as withheld
Respondent asserted a certificate was issued; court ordered it be given within 30 days
Costs
Each party will meet their costs of the suit
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 Court finds the reasons given by the Respondent for dismissing the Claimant were reasonable.
The reasons given pass the test for a valid reason as provided in Section 45(1) and (2) of the Employment Act.
The disciplinary hearing took place on 5th September 2023 and the Claimant participated fully in the hearing.
the court is convinced the Claimant was lawfully and procedurally terminated from his employment. His claim is therefore dismissed.
Each party will meet their costs of the suit.
The Claimant to be given his certificate of service within 30 days.
Issues in the judgment
#Contradictory dates for the disciplinary hearing in the claimant's evidence: 'the disciplinary hearing took place on 9th September 2023' versus the pleadings and the court's own finding of 5th September 2023
Misquotation of the Employment Act provision: the court reproduces section 41 of the Employment Act but labels it 'Section 4(1) of Employment Act'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koech v Ekatera Tea Kenya PLC (Cause E029 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1995 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1995/eng@2025-07-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.