The Kenya Pipeline Company (KPC) is in the spotlight after the Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled that the State-owned fuel transporter victimised an employee who exposed financial malpractices within its finance department, violating his constitutional and labour rights.
The court awarded the employee, Kefa Onsase, Sh3 million in damages after finding the company unlawfully retaliated against him for making protected disclosures in the public interest.
The court held that the company breached multiple constitutional provisions protecting workers from discrimination, unfair labour practices, and victimisation of whistleblowing.
It added that the employee suffered retaliation through blocked promotions, an adverse transfer, and loss of benefits, despite the company admitting that his disclosures were genuine.
“The petitioner has shown that he has been grossly victimised on account of his whistleblowing,” the court said, adding that the conduct undermined constitutional safeguards meant to protect integrity in public service.
Mr Onsase, a finance officer who has worked at the company since 2007, told the court that in 2020, he uncovered irregular payment of shift allowances, nepotism, and unfair promotions within the finance department. He reported the issues to the MD in line with KPC’s Whistleblowing Policy.
He moved to court after being transferred from Mombasa to Nairobi “without consultation or justification” and linked the move to his decision to expose the alleged malpractices.
According to the judgment, the company later admitted that the whistleblowing was genuine and that investigations led to disciplinary action, including termination, surcharges, and warnings against staff implicated in the scheme.
Despite this, the court found that Mr Onsase was punished instead of being protected.
He was denied promotions, removed from shift duties, transferred from Mombasa to Nairobi, and stagnated in a job grade that did not match his qualifications or responsibilities.
“It appears to the court that the petitioner was unfairly and discriminately denied promotion,” the court said, noting that officers implicated in the wrongdoing he exposed were later promoted. The court heard that the petitioner had served on shift duties for years and earned a 25 percent allowance, which formed a significant part of his income.
After the whistleblowing, he was transferred to a non-shift station, leading to a loss of earnings and disruption to his family life.
“The court finds that the petitioner has shown that he has been grossly victimised on account of his whistleblowing because he has been held and stagnated at KPC 11, which is even outside the lowest available grade of KPC 9 in his proper cadre. He has been denied confirmation despite ‘acting’ but in fact, imposed to work under grade KPC-7 for more than 1.5 years,” the judge said.
Kenya Pipeline Company argued that the transfer was meant to give him a conducive working environment after relations with supervisors deteriorated. The company said the move was done with consultation and was within management's prerogative.
However, the court rejected that explanation, finding that the transfer had adverse consequences and amounted to retaliation.
“The respondent has confirmed that the transfer from Mombasa was on account of the whistleblowing,” the court noted.
The ruling also faulted the company for keeping the employee at Job Group KPC 11, which the court said was outside the proper grading for his finance role. The judge found this stagnation discriminatory and linked it directly to the whistleblowing.
While declining to order his transfer back to Mombasa, the court said the harm suffered would be addressed through damages and corrective declarations.
The court emphasised that the fight against corruption cannot succeed if whistleblowers are punished. “The war against integrity leakage shall not be won merely by punishing culprits but also by vindicating whistleblowers,” the court said.
The court ordered Kenya Pipeline to put in place measures to protect the petitioner from further retaliation and to ensure fair consideration in future promotions. It also directed the company to decide on his promotion under the proper job group by July 2026.
In awarding Sh3 million, the court said the sum was meant to vindicate the violation of rights and deter future misconduct.
“The petitioner was a whistleblower who suffered serious victimisation in his employment relationship,” the court said.
