Kendagor v Dig Deep (Africa) (Cause 1644 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 2753 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed employers can monitor work emails and restrict employee contact during investigations, dismissing a claim for over Kshs 2.4 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the instruction barring communication with an employee under investigation violated the Claimant's freedom of association
No; it was a reasonable and necessary limitation under Article 24
The Claimant was directly involved in live investigations against Kiugo and was expressly instructed not to communicate with her to protect the integrity of the investigations. The Respondent invoked Article 24(1)(d) and (e) limitation parameters. The court held the limitation reasonable and necessary, tied to the employer's managerial prerogative and confidentiality duties, so the association complaint failed.
Whether the employer's access of the Claimant's emails violated her right to privacy
No; workplace systems remain the employer's property and may be monitored
The Staff Handbook clauses 30.16 and 30.18 expressly permitted monitoring of personal use and retrieval of message contents for investigating wrongful acts. The court adopted existing ELRC jurisprudence, including Peter Apollo Ochieng v Instarect Ltd and Musa v Makini Schools, holding that office computers and email systems belong to the employer, so accessing them is not a privacy violation.
Whether the composition of the disciplinary panel of external persons rendered the procedure unfair
No; the law sets minimum standards under Section 41, and these were met
Section 41 of the Employment Act requires explanation of grounds, entitlement to a companion, and hearing of representations. The court found no rule barring external panel members; the Claimant was informed of the allegations and given adequate opportunity to respond, which she did. The decision-maker's absence from the hearing did not vitiate the process.
Whether the termination was substantively and procedurally fair
Yes; the Claimant insubordinately contacted Kiugo and attempted to delete the email trail
The evidence showed the Claimant sent emails to Kiugo after being instructed not to, and screenshots showed her deleting the email trail. Following the burden-allocation framework in Bamburi Cement v Kilonzi and the contextual dishonesty test in Mckinley v B.C. Tel, the court found valid grounds and a fair procedure, dismissing the claim with costs.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of proving that a termination is unlawful rests on the employee, while the burden of justifying the grounds of termination rests on the employer
- Electronic communications systems and equipment issued at the workplace remain the property of the employer, who retains the right to track their use
- Nothing in the law prevents a disciplinary panel from being composed of external persons; the test is whether the employee was availed a fair opportunity to defend herself
Court orders
#- 1.Claimant's entire claim fails and is dismissed
- 2.Costs to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution (employment and labour relations jurisdiction); Employment Act invoked on merits
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kendagor v Dig Deep (Africa) (Cause 1644 of 2017) [2025] KEELRC 2753 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Memorandum of Claim dated 22nd August 2017 (ELRC, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2753/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.