SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Rotich v Chemartin Tea Company Limited (Cause E023 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2718 (KLR) (3 October 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELRC 2718 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
2718
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 2718 (KLR)
Decided
3 October 2025
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeEmployment DisputePostureClaimant seeks declaration of unfair termination and payment of terminal dues, Respondent counterclaimsCoramMA ONYANGO
The termination was procedurally fair but substantively unjustified, making it unfair under the Employment Act.

Facts

Claimant was employed as a Manager by Respondent from August 2003 to January 2021. He claims wrongful termination without notice, fair hearing, and payment of terminal dues.

Issues

  • Whether the termination was based on a valid reason and fair procedure
  • Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
  • Whether the Respondent has proved its counterclaim

Reasoning

The Respondent failed to prove valid reasons for termination under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. The disciplinary hearing was held, but the Claimant did not respond and claimed the hearing was chaotic.

Outcome

The Claimant's employment was declared unfair, and he is entitled to the terminal dues and compensation.

Remedies

  • Declaration of unfair termination
  • Payment of terminal dues and compensation

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Employment Act, 2007
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case