The Employment and Labour Relations Court has upheld the dismissal of a long-serving Lipton Teas and Infusions manager accused of sexual harassment and rejected his claim for Sh53 million in compensation.
The court ruled that the Dutch multinational company acted lawfully when it summarily dismissed Mr JKL in May 2023 after internal investigations linked him to improper conduct involving female junior employees.
The judge said the evidence showed Lipton (formerly Ekatera Tea Kenya plc) had valid grounds for dismissal and that the disciplinary process met legal standards of fairness.
The former manager joined the multinational tea group in 1996 and rose through the ranks to become a plant manager. His downfall followed a BBC documentary aired in early 2023 that exposed sexual abuse on Kenyan tea farms.
Though the individual filmed in the documentary was later identified as an independent contractor, the exposé created commercial pressure and prompted Lipton to investigate staff behavior.
Mr JKL was among those questioned and later accused of misconduct. At the time of the termination, he was earning Sh314,302 monthly salary.
He denied all wrongdoing, insisting he was made a scapegoat to appease foreign markets concerned about reputational damage.
He challenged his dismissal in court, asking the judge to declare his termination unlawful and seeking reinstatement or Sh53 million in damages, along with gratuity for 28 years and future earnings.
The claimant told the court the allegations were based on gossip and that he was denied the chance to confront his accusers.
He stated that “the disciplinary process was shambolic, rushed within five days, and influenced by a BBC exposé on sexual harassment in tea companies, making him a scapegoat to appease the overseas markets.”
However, Lipton maintained that the investigation uncovered credible complaints, including allegations that he promised preferential treatment to a female junior employee in exchange for sexual favors and made lewd remarks to two female colleagues.
The court found the company followed due process by issuing a notice to show cause on May 2, 2023, receiving his written response the following day, and summoning him to a disciplinary hearing.
The allegations were read to him at the hearing, and he signed the minutes. The judge noted he had been informed of his right to bring witnesses but declined to call any.
“The claimant was given sufficient time to respond in all proceedings,” the court stated, adding that his later complaint about lack of preparation appeared to be an afterthought.” It ruled that the company had proved the dismissal was justified.
The court found the complaints against him squarely met the definition of sexual harassment under Section 6 of the Employment Act.
The law defines harassment as conduct including sexual requests tied to preferential treatment, sexual remarks, or unwelcome physical behavior that harms an employee’s dignity or job satisfaction.
The ruling cited witness accounts alleging the claimant promised to buy intimate apparel, commented on a colleague’s breasts, and used his authority and financial position to pursue female employees.
“The panel found the claimant used his authority and financial position to seek sexual favors from junior employees,” the court said.
The ruling emphasized that sexual harassment cases often occur privately, making direct evidence rare. It referenced a prior case establishing that such cases should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the victim’s position.
The court held that the credibility of internal accounts was sufficient and that intent was irrelevant—what mattered was that the conduct was unwelcome and undermined the dignity of affected employees.
Mr JKL also argued that Lipton denied him fair administrative action by withholding witness statements and the investigation report.
The court dismissed this claim, noting the company’s sexual harassment policy prohibited cross-examining complainants to protect confidentiality.
The court deemed this approach lawful and consistent with company procedures, adding that the claimant had confirmed at the hearing’s outset that he was prepared to proceed.
After reviewing disciplinary records, the dismissal letter, and the appeal process conducted on May 15 and 17, 2023, the court concluded Lipton had exercised its authority lawfully.
