The Employment and Labour Relations Court has declined to compel Coca-Cola Beverages Limited to immediately reinstate the spouses of employees removed from the company's medical scheme for failing to provide marriage certificates, ruling that the dispute can only be resolved after a full hearing.
In a ruling delivered in Nairobi, Justice C.N. Baari dismissed an application by the Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers, which had sought interim orders directing the company to restore medical cover for all affected spouses pending the determination of the main suit.
The union argued that Coca-Cola unlawfully introduced a requirement that employees produce marriage certificates before their spouses could qualify for medical insurance, contrary to the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and long-standing practice.
According to the union, permanent unionisable employees and their nominated spouses had traditionally enjoyed medical cover under the company's scheme. However, in April 2025, spouses who had not produced marriage certificates were removed from the scheme despite the union's proposal that alternative proof of marriage, including next-of-kin records and Social Health Authority (SHA) biodata, be accepted.
The union maintained that the decision violated the CBA because it was implemented without consultation and deprived employees of negotiated benefits while exposing affected families to financial and emotional hardship.
It also argued that the Marriage Act does not make registration of marriage mandatory and that failure to register should not deny spouses access to healthcare benefits guaranteed under the employment arrangement.
Coca-Cola opposed the application, arguing that medical cover for spouses is not a contractual entitlement under the CBA but a discretionary benefit provided through company policy and its insurer.
The company told the court that the insurer introduced the marriage certificate requirement to comply with the Marriage Act and that employees were given more than a year to comply.
It said notices were issued, awareness meetings conducted, deadlines extended, and assistance provided to employees seeking marriage certificates.
According to the employer, more than 100 employees complied with the requirement and retained medical cover for their spouses.
In declining the application, Justice Baari held that the orders sought amounted to a mandatory injunction, which can only be granted in exceptional and clear cases.
"Whether the medical cover extended to spouses forms part of the negotiated terms of the CBA or is merely a discretionary benefit under Company policy is itself a substantive issue requiring interpretation of the CBA," the judge ruled.
The court further found that key questions, including whether the employer was required to consult the union before introducing the policy and whether Section 59 of the Marriage Act makes a marriage certificate the exclusive proof of marriage, remain contested and can only be determined through a full trial.
"The Court is unable, at this interlocutory stage, to conclude that the Applicant has established the exceptionally clear case required for the grant of a mandatory injunction," Justice Baari said.
The judge also observed that Coca-Cola did not abruptly withdraw the benefit, noting that employees were notified of the new requirement in January 2024, given extended timelines to comply, and offered assistance in obtaining marriage certificates before implementation began.
Consequently, the court dismissed the union's application, allowing the substantive dispute over the legality of the marriage certificate requirement and spousal medical cover to proceed to a full hearing.
Comments
Sign in with Google to comment, reply, and like comments.
Continue with Google