Waweru v Majid Al Futtaim Hypermarkets Limited t/a Carrefour (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E158 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 837 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld Carrefour's dismissal of a store manager who took Kshs. 50,000 from a supplier, and ordered him to pay the company's legal costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal was for a valid reason
Yes - the petitioner admitted receiving Kshs. 50,000/= from a supplier, breaching the respondent's code of ethics
The petitioner admitted in cross-examination to receiving Kshs. 50,000/= from supplier Yahya Mohamed and offered no explanation for a receipt of money prohibited by the HR manual and ethics code. The respondent proved the valid reason on a balance of probability under section 43(1) and (2) read with sections 45(1) and (2) of the Employment Act 2007.
Whether a fair procedure was followed before dismissal
Yes - the respondent complied with section 41 of the Employment Act
The petitioner was suspended, investigated, issued a notice to show cause, furnished with the investigation report, code of ethics and HR policy, responded to the allegations, and attended a disciplinary hearing where he confirmed the relevant phone number. The court held the respondent complied with section 41 and that allegations of breaches of other statutes and constitutional rights were unsupported by evidence.
Whether the M-Pesa evidence was illegally obtained in breach of the petitioner's privacy
No - the information came from the supplier's M-Pesa statements obtained by police under court-issued warrants
The petitioner claimed the respondent unlawfully accessed his private phone information, but the evidence showed the matter was reported to police, warrants were issued in Republic v Safaricom Kenya Limited, and the payment was detected in the supplier's statements. The respondent never submitted the petitioner's phone details to the police, so the evidence was lawfully obtained.
Legal principles established
#- An employer relying on evidence of an employee's receipt of money from a supplier obtained through police search warrants lawfully issued by a court does not breach the employee's privacy rights
- An ordinary employment dispute should not be brought as a constitutional petition; doing so may constitute abuse of the constitutional process
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.The reliefs sought by the petitioner are denied
- 3.The petitioner (claimant) to pay the costs of the suit to the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 41, 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (invoked in the petition); Employment Act 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Waweru v Majid Al Futtaim Hypermarkets Limited t/a Carrefour (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E158 of 2022) [2024] KEELRC 837 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (petition dated 19/8/2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/837/eng@2024-04-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.