Ngugi & 16 others v Safaricom PLC (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1565 of 2018 & Cause 70 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 1521 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court found Safaricom unfairly dismissed 17 sales managers and ordered it to pay each up to a year's salary in compensation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether there was a valid reason for summary dismissal
The Respondent failed to prove a valid reason; the Claimants were set up to fail by being required to implement a deficient project without monitoring tools
The Claimants reported systemic deficiencies during the pilot phase, which the Respondent ignored before a national roll out of 90,000 devices. No efficient electronic monitoring mechanism was given to ASMs, only the HQ compliance team had such capacity, and no appraisal or remedial measures preceded dismissal. All 39 ASMs failed equally, indicating the project was unimplementable. RW1 could not rebut the evidence. The Respondent discontinued the project upon dismissing the Claimants, corroborating that they were set up to fail.
Whether a fair procedure was followed
No fair procedure was followed; the dismissal violated section 41 of the Employment Act and the rules of natural justice
No show cause letters were issued; Claimants were only invited to hearings to account for devices. They were not given adequate time to trace devices across wide areas without monitoring tools, some had been transferred mid-roll-out, and no evidence was adduced before the disciplinary panels showing how each Claimant failed. No witness testified before the panels on guilt. Placing the Claimants on their defence for matters the Respondent had not enabled them to account for offended natural justice.
Whether constitutional rights were violated / discrimination proved
No discrimination or constitutional violation was proved
All 39 ASMs were dismissed under the same conditions and only 5 were reinstated after appeals. There was insufficient evidence that the reinstatement was discriminatory as defined under section 5 of the Employment Act read with Article 27 of the Constitution, so general damages were not available.
Entitlement to reliefs
Claimants entitled to notice pay and compensation of ten months' salary (twelve months for the 2nd Claimant); house allowance, per diem, future earnings and aggravated damages dismissed
Having found the dismissal unlawful and unfair, the court exercised discretion under section 49(1)(c) and (4) of the Employment Act guided by the Kenfreight decision, considering among other factors that most Claimants had not obtained alternative employment, that the Respondent did not prove contribution, and that no notice pay or time to prepare was given.
Legal principles established
#- The employer bears the burden of proving a valid reason for summary dismissal under sections 43(1) and (2) of the Employment Act
- Where a court finds unlawful termination, the appropriate remedy is that provided under section 49 of the Employment Act, exercised judiciously and guided by section 49(4)
- Reasonableness in an employer's dismissal decision entails fairness, transparency, consideration of all factors, justifiability, clear communication and proportionality
Court orders
#- 1.Compensation for unlawful and unfair summary dismissal equivalent to ten (10) months' gross salary for most Claimants and twelve (12) months' salary for the 2nd Claimant Richard Alenga Inyumuli, with specific awards computed per Claimant at their respective gross monthly salaries
- 2.One month salary in lieu of notice to each of the 17 Claimants at their respective monthly salaries
- 3.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment till payment in full
- 4.Costs of the suit to the Claimants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 and the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (Articles 10, 27, 41 and 50 invoked in the claim)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngugi & 16 others v Safaricom PLC (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 1565 of 2018 & Cause 70 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 1521 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No. 1565 of 2018 (consolidated with Cause No. 70 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1521/eng@2025-05-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.