Logistics company DHL has been ordered to pay a former employee Sh3.8 million after a court found that the firm sacked her unfairly and without justification.
Jacqueline Amutavi sued DHL Supply Chain Kenya Limited over her termination in June 2020, which was allegedly due to a conflict of interest.
This followed the hiring of her nephew in the finance department and the contracting of her sister-in-law’s catering firm by DHL.
Ms Amutavi had worked for the logistics firm since May 2004, initially joining as a transport clerk before rising to become the company’s finance controller in April 2019.
She maintained that the transactions were transparent and did not breach company policy.
In a November 7 ruling, the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi found that Ms Amutavi had been subjected to a flawed disciplinary process that violated the Employment Act 2007.
The court also found that DHL lacked a clear conflict-of-interest policy and that the disciplinary committee had pre-emptively decided on her fate before hearing her case.
“The intention and action to terminate the claimant were premeditated. The claimant appealed her termination, but by May 28th 2020, she had already been sent clearance documents a day before the hearing of her appeal,” said the court.
The labour court also found that DHL had failed to prove that Ms Amutavi’s conduct conflicted with its business interests or that the disciplinary process followed had adhered to the firm’s own internal rules.
“Having found lack of valid reason to warrant termination of the claimant and having found that the disciplinary process was flawed, I find the termination of the claimant was unfair and unjustified,” the court ruled.
The court awarded Ms Amutavi Sh3.45 million in compensation for unfair termination, equivalent to 10 months’ salary, and an additional one-month salary of Sh345,532 in lieu of notice, bringing the total to Sh3.8 million before statutory deductions.
DHL was also ordered to pay the legal costs and interest.
Ms Amutavi had submitted claims to the court relating to underpayment during her 16 years of employment at the firm, discrimination and defamation arising from a newspaper notice announcing her dismissal.
However, the court dismissed most of her claims due to insufficient evidence.
