https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1856

Kirui v Williamson Tea Kenya PLC (Appeal E002 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1856 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1856 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho Appeal E002 of 2026 J Rika, J June 30, 2026 Between Vincent Kiprotich Kirui Appellant and Williamson Tea Kenya PLC Respondent (An Appeal from the Judgment of Hon. B.M.Kimtai, Senior Principal Magistrate, delivered on 17th December 2025, in SPM’s Court at Sotik MCELRC Cause No. E002 of 2025, between the Parties herein) Judgment 1.In his Claim before the Trial Court, the Appellant averred that he was employed by the Respondent, as a driver, for 8 years, from the year 2017 to 25th September 2025. 2.He was dismissed by the Respondent for stealing Respondent’s tyre. 3.He filed the Claim, alleging that he was unfairly and unlawfully dismissed. He prayed for among other remedies, reinstatement or compensation, and a range of terminal benefits. 4.In its Judgment, the Trial Court found that he was dismissed through a fair procedure and on valid ground. The Claim was dismissed with no order on the costs. 5.He filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 3rd October 2025, setting out 9 Grounds of Appeal, summarized as follows: -a.The Trial Court erred in finding that the Appellant’s Claim was not proved.b.The Trial Court erred by disregarding the Appellant’s pleadings, and arrived at a wrong decision.c.The Trial Court erred by failing to capture the evidence tendered.d.The Trial Court erred by taking into account issues that were not raised by the Parties.e.The Trial Court erred by applying the wrong principles of the law. 6.The Appellant prays: -a.The Appeal is allowed with costs.b.Judgment of the Trial Court is set aside.c.The Court makes such further orders as may be just and expedient. 7.The Appeal was last mentioned before the Court on 21st April 2026, when the Appellant confirmed filing and service of the Record of Appeal, and Parties directed to file and exchange their closing submissions. 8.The Appellant mainly rehashes the contents of his Statement of Claim in his submissions, emphasizing that the Respondent did not clearly state what was stolen, whether it was a tyre or a wheel. The Respondent did not describe the size of the tyre or wheel, in the letter of summary dismissal. The Appellant apologized to the Respondent, and replaced the lost tyre, to save his job, not in admission of guilt. He submits that he was not given adequate opportunity to prepare for the disciplinary hearing, Lastly, it is submitted that the Appellant should have been paid gratuity, although not eligible under the applicable CBA, since Section 46 [1] of the Employment Act, voids any contract term, that purports to limit employment rights and remedies. 9.The Court has not traced any submissions filed by the Respondent, at the time of preparing this Judgment. The Court Finds: - 10.The Appeal is clearly without merit, the Appellant having been taken through a fair disciplinary process, and given a valid reason in justifying dismissal. The Trial Court did not err, in finding termination to have been procedurally fair and substantively justifiable. 11.The Appellant was accused of stealing the Respondent’s lorry tyre. He wrote a letter on 24th September 2025, apologizing for the loss, and assuring the Respondent that the loss would never happen again. 12.It is pointless to split hairs on Appeal, on whether what he stole was a tyre or a wheel . He apologized identifying what he stole, to have been a tyre. 13.His submissions needlessly veer into a standard of proof required in criminal prosecutions, the proof beyond reasonable doubt, while the Respondent only needed to justify its reason under Sections 43 and 47[5] of the Employment Act, on a balance of probability. 14.Notwithstanding his admission in the apology letter, the Appellant attacks the Judgment of the Trial Court in his submissions, for failing to examine if what he stole was a tyre or a wheel. He cites the Oxford Dictionary on the distinction between a tyre and a wheel. The lorry could have been driven by other drivers. Theft was not reported to the police station. He even submits that the Court should invoke the phrase from an American 1995 criminal trial, involving O.J. Simpson, that ‘’ if it does not fit, you must acquit.’’ Evidence of theft against the Appellant was inadequate, and he ought to have been ‘acquitted.’ 15.The cited American case is geographically and jurisprudentially far-fetched. The Appellant was not involved in a criminal trial, and the Respondent was not required to establish culpability, beyond reasonable doubt. The Respondent was only required to have reasonable suspicion, under the Employment Act, that the Appellant was involved in an employment offence, warranting summary dismissal. 16.Not only was there evidence of his own admission to involvement in theft of the tyre; there was evidence from mechanics Festus Kimutai and Mark Mumo, that the Appellant contacted them on phone, about the stolen tyre. 17.Festus realized the tyre on the lorry was worn out. The one he has fixed earlier was newer. The Appellant attempted to prevail on the mechanics not to report the offence, promising to quietly replace the tyre. 18.The mechanics were not shown by the Appellant to have anything against him. Their witness accounts, were consistent with the Appellant’s own admission through his apology, and his undertaking that he would not repeat the offence. 19.There was clearly valid ground, to justify termination. 20.The Appellant was heard in the presence of two representatives of his trade union. They made their representations. 21.There is nothing in the Record of Appeal to fault the procedure adopted by the Respondent, in terminating his contract. His trade union representatives did not raise any procedural objection at the hearing. The Appellant himself did not object to any aspect of the hearing. 22.The Grounds of Appeal are unfounded. The Appellant did not establish at the Trial Court that he was unfairly dismissed. There were no noticeable errors by the Trial Court, in its assessment of procedural and substantive justice. The Trial Court considered relevant evidence and pleadings by the Parties. There were no extraneous matters, that informed the Judgment of the Trial Court. The Appellant was involved in an act of gross misconduct, which he admitted, and undertook not to repeat. Section 46 [1] of the Employment Act, cited in the Appellant’s submissions, does not void terms of a contract that purport to limit employment remedies. There is no Section 46 [1], but Section 46 [a] to [e], which is on reasons for termination. The Appellant’s argument that he should have been paid gratuity pursuant to the Employment Act, and against the 10-year qualifying period under the CBA, has no foundation.It is ordered: -a.The Appeal is declined.b.Costs to the Respondent. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU, UNDER RULE 68[5] OF THE E&LRC [PROCEDURE] RULES, 2024, THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.JAMES RIKAJUDGECourt Assistant: Emmanuel KipronoKipkurui Kemboi & Associates, Advocates for the AppellantOnyikwa & Company Advocates for the Respondent