Human and animal feed maker Unga Limited has been sued by one of its senior managers over the alleged unlawful intrusion into his M-Pesa records, with the Employment and Labour Relations Court granting him temporary relief by halting disciplinary proceedings against him.
The court ruled that the company violated its own disciplinary procedures by suspending WM and subjecting him to a rushed process that failed to meet fairness standards.
“The manner in which the respondents handled this disciplinary process was indeed an indication of failure to follow their laid-down processes and the law,” the court stated.
The dispute arose after Unga issued WM with a show-cause letter and suspension notice dated September 15, 2025, accusing him of improperly receiving funds from suppliers and transporters linked to the company.
Unga’s internal investigation allegedly uncovered mobile money transactions showing payments totalling Sh560,144 – later revised to Sh449,000 – from suppliers.
However, WM argued that the company unlawfully accessed his private M-Pesa records without his knowledge, consent, or a court order, thereby infringing his constitutional right to privacy under Article 31.
He contended that personal financial transactions are protected private matters and that Unga relied on illegally obtained evidence.
Unga countered that WM’s employment contract included a clause permitting the collection and processing of his personal data for matters related to his employment.
The firm’s legal representative argued that managerial employees bear greater responsibility for upholding integrity and compliance with company policies.
“Violation of the policies, rules, and regulations of employment forms a valid reason for dismissal of an employee from employment. This is more so where such a violation is by a managerial level employee, such as the petitioner, who is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the respondent’s business process and therefore is required to ensure compliance with the Code of Conduct as part of performance of his day-to-day duties,” Unga’s advocate told the court.
Contract vs rights
WM maintained that contractual terms cannot override constitutional rights.
“Financial data, especially personal mobile money transactions, form the bedrock of an individual’s private life. This court has consistently held that such dealings fall under Article 31’s protections,” he said.
He further accused Unga of unfair treatment, saying his suspension was carried out without due process and that he was given only 48 hours to respond to the allegations – contrary to the company’s Human Resources manual, which requires a minimum of three days.
Justice Hellen Wasilwa agreed, noting that Unga’s HR policy explicitly requires employees to submit written responses within three days of receiving a show-cause letter.
The court heard that WM had requested additional time, as well as copies of the investigation report and the court order authorising access to his financial data, but Unga declined these requests and proceeded with a disciplinary hearing while he remained suspended.
In its defence, Unga said it acted on a whistleblower report from March 2025 alleging financial misconduct involving employees and suppliers.
The company reported the matter to the police, who obtained a court order from Makadara Law Courts allowing access to certain financial records as part of a criminal investigation.
Unga said the probe revealed that WM had received payments from suppliers, breaching its code of conduct and creating a conflict of interest. The firm argued that because he admitted receiving the funds, he approached the court with “unclean hands”.
Unga also cited the Data Protection Act, arguing it had legal grounds to process WM’s data without consent in the context of an employment-related investigation.
The company emphasised its managerial prerogative to discipline staff and urged the court not to interfere with internal processes, maintaining that there had been no breach of the petitioner’s data protection or privacy rights.
Justice Wasilwa said the court’s role was not to determine the validity of the allegations but to assess the fairness of the disciplinary process.
She found that the 48-hour response period, coupled with the refusal to grant an extension, amounted to procedural unfairness.
“The applicant has established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success,” she ruled, ordering an immediate halt to the disciplinary proceedings.
The judge said Unga was free to restart the process, provided it complied with the law and its own HR policies.
“The respondents are at liberty to initiate proper processes in line with the law and their HR manual,” she concluded.
