Okindo v Gratify Solutions International Ltd & 3 others; National Employment Authority (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E105 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2929 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan worker's human trafficking claim against a recruitment agency failed because his testimony contradicted his own documents, though police were ordered to investigate.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents recruited, transported and trafficked the Petitioner to Myanmar for exploitation
The claim failed: while payment of money to the 2nd Respondent was proved, the Respondents' role behind the Petitioner's travel to Thailand on a tourist visa for employment was not supported by evidence
The court accepted that the Petitioner exchanged money with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, but found that the allegation that the Respondents were solely behind his travel to Thailand and Bangkok for employment, especially on a tourist visa, was not supported by evidence. The Petitioner's admission that he returned to Kenya upon deportation for visa overstay made his claim of movement to Myanmar for employment suspect, and his evidence remained inconsistent with the documents produced.
Whether the constitutional violations alleged (slavery, inhuman treatment, movement, privacy/dignity) were proved against the Respondents
The declarations and damages sought were not granted because the evidence did not support them
The court examined the Petitioner's narrative of recruitment, payment, travel through Bangkok, crossing into Myanmar and exploitation in scam compounds, but found his account inconsistent with the documentary evidence, including his deportation on expiry of the tourist visa. The serious criminal allegations were nonetheless referred for investigation by the IG and DCI rather than adjudicated as proved violations.
Whether the Kshs 120,000 paid to the 2nd Respondent was a job placement fee or loan repayment
The exchange of money was proved, but the 2nd Respondent gave no evidence of any loan, so the payment was undisputed; this did not, however, establish trafficking
The 2nd Respondent admitted receiving Kshs 120,000 but claimed it was repayment of a soft loan advanced to the Petitioner. The court noted that the 2nd Respondent did not provide any evidence of issuing the loan, so the fact of the payment stood proved, but it was insufficient to prove the Respondents recruited the Petitioner for foreign employment.
Legal principles established
#- A petitioner seeking to prove serious allegations such as human trafficking must support the claim with consistent evidence; inconsistency between testimony and documents is fatal to the claim
- Where a petition raises serious allegations alluding to commission of a crime, the court may direct investigation by the Inspector General and the DCI
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition and all prayers sought therein are dismissed for lack of supporting evidence
- 2.The issues raised in the petition, which allude to commission of a crime, are to be investigated by the office of the Inspector General and DCI, and culprits, if found, charged accordingly
- 3.The judgment to be served upon the Inspector General, Attorney General and DCI
- 4.No order of costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional petition jurisdiction (Bill of rights enforcement) before the Employment and Labour Relations Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okindo v Gratify Solutions International Ltd & 3 others; National Employment Authority (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E105 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2929 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 29th May 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2929/eng@2025-10-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.