Coca-Cola Sued Over Marriage Certificate Mandate for Spousal Medical Cover

The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi has declined to compel Coca-Cola Beverages Limited to immediately reinstate the spouses of employees who were removed from the company's medical insurance scheme. Justice C.N. Baari dismissed an application by a workers' union that sought interim orders to restore the cover.

The Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers (KUCFAW) filed the lawsuit, arguing that the beverage manufacturer unlawfully introduced a new requirement for employees to produce marriage certificates. According to the union, this policy directly contradicts the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and long-standing corporate practices.

The dispute escalated after the company removed spouses who failed to produce the certificates from the medical scheme in April 2025. KUCFAW had proposed that alternative proof of marriage, such as next-of-kin records and Social Health Authority (SHA) biodata, should be accepted by the employer instead.

The union further argued that the Marriage Act does not make the registration of marriages mandatory. It contended that a failure to register a union should not deny spouses access to vital healthcare benefits that are guaranteed under their current employment arrangements.

Coca-Cola Beverages Limited strongly opposed the application, stating that medical cover for spouses is not a contractual entitlement. The company asserted that the medical scheme is a discretionary benefit provided through corporate policy and its selected insurance provider.

The employer informed the court that the insurance firm introduced the marriage certificate requirement to ensure strict compliance with the Marriage Act. Coca-Cola stated that its workforce was given more than a year to comply with the directive before any administrative action was taken.

According to court documents, internal notices were issued in January 2024, and multiple awareness meetings were subsequently conducted. The company also extended deadlines and provided direct assistance to employees who were seeking to obtain official marriage certificates from government registries.

The beverage company revealed that more than 100 employees successfully complied with the directive and retained medical cover for their spouses. The firm argued that the benefit was not abruptly withdrawn, given the extended timelines and compliance support provided.

In her ruling, Justice Baari held that the orders sought by the union amounted to a mandatory injunction. She noted that such injunctions can only be granted by the court in exceptional and clear cases, which did not apply to this specific corporate dispute.

The judge explained that whether the medical cover forms part of the negotiated terms of the CBA or is a discretionary benefit requires deeper interpretation. This substantive issue remains contested and can only be determined through a full trial involving all parties.

The court found that several key questions remain unresolved, including whether the employer was legally required to consult the union before implementing the policy. Additionally, the court must determine if Section 59 of the Marriage Act makes a certificate the exclusive proof of marriage.

Justice Baari concluded that the dispute would need witnesses and a comprehensive interpretation of past practices before a final decision can be made. The substantive case will now proceed to a full hearing to determine the legality of the medical cover requirement.