Njunge v Safaricom PLC (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E103 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 287 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld Safaricom's dismissal of an employee linked to suspected money laundering, ruling that mere suspicion on a balance of probabilities can justify summary dismissal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent had valid reasons for the summary dismissal (substantive fairness)
The reasons were valid and related to the claimant's misconduct in engaging in proceeds of crime and to the respondent's operational requirements/reputational interests
The employer bore the burden under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. The claimant was first respondent in ARA forfeiture proceedings under POCAMLA, was sole signatory to an account holding over Kshs. 74 million suspected to be proceeds of crime, and the matter attracted adverse media coverage linking her to the respondent. The claimant's own admissions in cross-examination and the investigation report justified the employer's suspicion on a balance of probabilities. The civil nature of POCAMLA proceedings did not render the conduct non-criminal.
Whether the disciplinary process and sanction complied with fair procedure
The process complied with section 41 of the Employment Act and dismissal was a justified sanction under section 44(4)(g) and the employer's disciplinary policy
The court found it was not in dispute that the process complied with section 41 - the claimant was suspended, investigated, issued a notice to show cause and heard. The policy offered dismissal or final warning for breach of compliance rules, and dismissal only for suspected criminal offence; the choice lay with the employer. Applying the reasonable employer test, any reasonable employer would have dismissed the claimant given the severity of the charges.
Whether the claimant was entitled to reinstatement or compensation
The claimant was entitled to neither, as the dismissal was lawful and fair
Reinstatement and compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act are remedies available only upon a finding of unfair or unlawful termination. Having upheld both the substantive and procedural fairness of the dismissal, the court found no basis for any of the reliefs sought and dismissed the claim with costs.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to be fair there must be both substantive and procedural fairness, with the burden on the employer to prove a valid reason and fair procedure
- In employment matters an employer need only justify suspicion of criminal-related conduct on a preponderance of evidence, not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Proceedings under POCAMLA for forfeiture are civil in nature, but that does not render suspected money-laundering conduct non-criminal for purposes of gross misconduct under section 44(4)(g) of the Employment Act
- Where a disciplinary policy offers two sanctions, the choice of sanction lies within the employer's discretion, tested by the reasonable employer test
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit to the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution (establishment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court) - employment dispute under the Employment Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njunge v Safaricom PLC (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E103 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 287 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause (Nairobi), Statement of Claim dated 15th February 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/287/eng@2025-02-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.