Ndung’u v Safaricom Kenya PLC Limited (Cause E6492 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 181 (KLR)

The Court found common evidence that the Claimant sustained acoustic shock syndrome and rhinosinusitis, confirmed by multiple physicians, and was documented among nine call centre employees declared medically unfit for headset duties. The Respondent followed its redeployment policy (90-day temporary redeployment) and then its medical retirement policy, both grounded on medical reports. There was no material to contradict the validity of the ground for medical retirement.

Although the Respondent complied with its internal redeployment and medical retirement policies, there was no record of the Claimant being invited to a meeting with a communicated agenda, advised of her right to be accompanied, or of minutes recording any hearing. The retirement letter referred to consent and meetings but no consent or hearing record was exhibited, and the appeal was dismissed by a letter that did not address any specific ground or disclose any hearing on appeal.

The Claimant produced no comparators showing colleagues similarly injured received more favourable treatment or were granted redeployment she was denied. The redeployment and medical retirement policies were not shown to be contrary to the law or the Constitution. The Court held the procedural flaw was adequately remedied under the Employment Act without engaging constitutional jurisdiction.

The Court distinguished Coastal Bottlers v Kimathi Mithika: while post-termination discharge vouchers can be binding, they must be voluntary and unequivocal. Here the Claimant wrote her reservations on the document before execution, indicated she signed without prejudice to seeking legal intervention, and did not sign immediately but returned later with reservations. The Respondent's witness conceded these facts.

The policy provides that an employee on negotiated loan schemes must liaise directly with the loan provider on recovery of outstanding amounts, and that the employer will not be liable for outstanding loan amounts or penalties. The Respondent's sole obligation is to notify the loan provider of the medical retirement. The prayer for immediate settlement was therefore unsupported by the policy.

The Claimant worked about 8 years; the circumstances of her retirement were not created by her and she did not contribute to her work injury or illness. She was otherwise healthy and able to work elsewhere. Weighing these factors against the valid substantive ground and the procedurally flawed execution, the Court awarded 5 ½ months' gross salary rather than the 12 months sought.