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

Orangi & 21 others v Philips East Africa Limited (Cause E262 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3392 (KLR) (28 November 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KEELRC 3392 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
3392
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 3392 (KLR)
Decided
28 November 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLabor DisputePostureAppeal from the original trialCoramBOM MANANI, ANDREW KARAN
Holding

The Respondent must ensure that the transaction does not disadvantage the employees and must protect their accrued benefits and terms and conditions of engagement.

Facts

The Claimants are employees of Philips East Africa Limited. The Respondent, Philips East Africa Limited, decided to source for and transfer shares to a potential investor, which led to the dispute.

Issues

  1. Whether the transfer of shares or undertaking by the Respondent to a new investor is a business decision that impacts the employees' contracts of service.
  2. What obligations does the Respondent have towards the employees during the process of transferring shares or undertaking.
  3. Whether there is existing legislation in Kenya to protect employee rights during such process.

Reasoning

The court found that a transfer of undertaking poses a risk to job security and the Respondent is duty-bound to ensure the employees' rights are protected. The court also noted that the Constitution obligates employers to uphold fair labour practices, including during a share or business undertaking transfer.

Outcome

The Respondent must ensure the transaction does not disadvantage the employees and must protect their accrued benefits and terms and conditions of engagement.

Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case