Lucy Rimanto Molonket v Simon Peter Ole Nkeri & 7 others; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & Director, Criminal Investigation Department (Interested Parties) [2022] KEELRC 123 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a senior manager's petition, ruling her redeployment was a normal employer restructuring decision, not harassment or a rights violation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the redeployment from Head of Sales and Marketing to Head of Special Projects violated the Petitioner's constitutional rights
No violation; the redeployment was a normal human resource function within the employer's managerial prerogative, following a Board-sanctioned restructuring that affected other senior managers
The Court accepted the employer's evidence of financial difficulties and a Board-driven restructuring in which eleven senior managers, including the Petitioner, were moved. The position of Head of Special Projects had a job description, and the Petitioner took up the appointment without objection. There was no evidence of targeting, harassment or discrimination, so the employer's prerogative stood undisturbed.
Whether the employer failed to act on the Petitioner's sexual harassment complaint
The complaint was properly investigated by a select committee which heard both parties and a witness, and the outcome was communicated; the allegation was not proved and the Board was not unresponsive
Evidence showed the Board resolved on 21st September 2016 to investigate the allegations; a select committee comprising the Company Secretary, Gender Officer and Board Chairman held a hearing on 14th October 2016, took oral and written representations from the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent and his bodyguard, and communicated the outcome by letter dated 21st November 2016. The Court found no fault in the finding that the allegation was unproved.
Whether the 1st Respondent's appointment as Managing Director/CEO was irregular and fit to be quashed
The appointment was lawfully made by the Cabinet Secretary under Section 5(3) of the State Corporations Act upon the Board's recommendation; allegations of integrity issues were unsupported
The Cabinet Secretary deponed that the Board recommended three candidates by letter dated 14th January 2015, and he appointed the 1st Respondent after due consideration. The EACC denied any record of complaints or pending criminal or integrity issues against the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner's belated challenge, lodged four months after the appointment, lacked evidential support.
Legal principles established
#- Courts interfere only sparingly with an employer's human resource functions such as transfer and redeployment
- An employer's deployment prerogative must be exercised for genuine operational reasons; if exercised for collateral purposes the Court will intervene
- An employer owes a positive obligation on receipt of a sexual harassment complaint to investigate and redress it
Court orders
#- 1.The entire Petition is dismissed
- 2.Each party will bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya, 2010 - petition for enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms (Articles 25(c), 27, 28, 29, 30(2), 35(1)(b), 41, 47 and 50) before the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Molonket v East African Portland Cement Company (Cause 198 of 2019) [2023] KEELRC 2137 (KLR)[2023] KEELRC 2137 (KLR)20 Sept 2023
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lucy Rimanto Molonket v Simon Peter Ole Nkeri & 7 others; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & Director, Criminal Investigation Department (Interested Parties) [2022] KEELRC 123 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Petition dated 10th November 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/123/eng@2022-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.