Court backs sacking of ex-Safaricom manager caught in money-laundering case

“The court was convinced that taking into account the nature of the charges facing Ms Njunge, any reasonable employer would have dismissed her instead of imposing a final warning,” said the Labour Relations judge.

The court found that the claim filed by Ms Njunge seeking reinstatement and damages for the alleged wrongful termination lacked merit.

Safaricom terminated Ms Njunge’s contract in September 2021 on grounds of breaching the company's standards of business conduct and anti-money laundering policy.

This was after she was implicated in suspected criminal activities involving Sh74 million suspected to be proceeds of crime.

The money was held in her bank account. She was also confirmed to be the director of the company in the ARA case called Light House Ltd. Her monthly gross salary at Safaricom was Sh338,000.

She had worked with Safaricom for more than 10 years and rose through the ranks to a managerial position.

According to Safaricom, the ARA case generated negative press statements, and Ms Njunge breached the company's disciplinary policy and procedures by bringing it into disrepute.

“The court agreed with Safaricom that the conduct of Ms Njunge also risked injury to its reputation. She was a senior officer interacting with clients of Safaricom. The court holds the reasons for the dismissal were valid and based on the misconduct of the claimant and the operational requirements of the employer,” Justice Keli said.

Read: Senior Safaricom executives named in billion shillings procurement scam

The judge added that the conduct of Ms Njunge may have not directly caused loss or injury to Safaricom but it was to substantial detriment of the company’s reputation.

This, the court said, further posed a risk to the relationship with Safaricom’s business partners as the conduct violated the business standards which the claimant admitted knowledge of.

“Her conduct was gross misconduct which also attracts summary dismissal under section 44(4)(g) of the Employment Act. The choice of dismissal as a sanction was thus justified and procedural. It was the prerogative of the employer to choose which sanction to apply taking into account the severity of the misconduct and the sanction was lawful,” said the judge.

Urging the court to dismiss the claim, Safaricom drew the court's attention to the company’s Standards of Business Conduct Policy, which provided that its employees would not be involved in known or suspected criminal activities.

Through its officer, Mr Odhiambo Ooko (Senior Manager Employee and Labour Relations), the company said Ms Njunge was the first respondent in a suit filed in court by the Assets Recovery Agency against her and other people for recovery of assets that were proceeds of crime.

Ms Njunge contended that Safaricom relied on rumours and unfounded allegations in the court case filed by the Asset Recovery Authority.

She said the disciplinary process that led to her dismissal was flawed as the company failed to appreciate that the pending court case initiated by the ARA was civil in nature and was forfeiture. It was not a criminal matter to warrant the drastic disciplinary action taken by the company.

She insisted that the allegations levelled against her, which formed the basis of her summary dismissal, were unlawful/wrongful as provisions under which she was summarily dismissed would have only applied if she had committed a criminal offence.

“The disciplinary process was flawed because Safaricom relied on unverified social media bloggers, TV, and newspaper reports in arriving at its verdict. The company’s adverse verdict against Ms Njunge was prejudicial to her as the matter was still pending in court for hearing and determination,” her lawyer told the court.