Coca-Cola sued over controversial marriage certificate rule for spouse medical cover

A controversial policy requiring employees to produce marriage certificates before their spouses can access company-funded medical insurance has landed Coca-Cola Beverages Africa Kenya in court, with a trade union challenging the move as unlawful and contrary to a negotiated Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

The Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers (KUCFAW) has sued the company, arguing that the policy unlawfully stripped medical cover from employees’ spouses who failed to submit marriage certificates, despite years of enjoying the benefit under the existing employment arrangement.

The dispute, however, will now proceed to a full hearing after the Employment and Labour Relations Court declined to grant interim orders reinstating the affected spouses to the medical scheme.

In a ruling delivered in Nairobi, Justice C.N. Baari held that the legality of Coca-Cola’s marriage certificate requirement raises substantive legal and contractual questions that can only be determined after hearing evidence from both parties.

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 union is challenging the legality of the controversial policy by Coca-Cola requiring employees to introduce the marriage certificate requirement without consulting the union and whether such a condition is consistent with the CBA and Kenya’s marriage laws.

The union argues that permanent unionisable employees had traditionally been allowed to nominate their spouses for medical cover without being required to produce marriage certificates.

According to court documents, the company began enforcing the new requirement in April 2025, resulting in spouses without marriage certificates being removed from the medical insurance scheme.

KUCFAW contends that the policy was introduced unilaterally and violated the CBA by altering negotiated employment benefits without consultation. It says the decision exposed affected employees and their families to financial hardship by denying them access to healthcare.

The union further argues that the Marriage Act does not make registration of marriages mandatory and that a marriage certificate should not be the sole proof of marriage for purposes of accessing employment benefits.

It had proposed that alternative forms of verification, including next-of-kin records and Social Health Authority (SHA) biodata, be accepted instead.

Coca-Cola has defended the policy, maintaining that spousal medical cover is not a contractual entitlement under the CBA but a discretionary benefit provided through company policy and administered by its insurer.

Coca-Cola told the court that the insurer introduced the marriage certificate requirement to comply with the Marriage Act and prevent abuse of the medical scheme.

It said employees were notified of the new policy in January 2024 and given more than a year to comply through awareness meetings, extended deadlines and assistance in obtaining marriage certificates.

According to the company, more than 100 employees complied with the requirement and retained medical cover for their spouses.

In declining to issue interim orders, Justice Baari noted that the union was effectively seeking a mandatory injunction, a remedy granted only in exceptional and clear cases.

The judge said the court could not, at this stage, determine whether spousal medical cover is a negotiated benefit protected under the CBA or a discretionary benefit governed by company policy.

He also found that questions surrounding the employer’s duty to consult the union and whether a marriage certificate is the exclusive legal proof of marriage require full examination during the 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 ruled.

He further observed that the company did not abruptly withdraw the benefit, noting that employees had received advance notice of the policy, were granted additional time to comply and were assisted in obtaining marriage certificates before implementation.

While dismissing the application for temporary reinstatement of the affected spouses, the court allowed the substantive suit to proceed, setting up what could become a significant test case on the extent to which employers can impose documentary requirements for employee benefits and whether such policies can override collectively negotiated workplace agreements.