Oil firm to pay worker Sh3.8m for unfair sacking
News
By
Patrick Alushula
| Jan 26, 2022
Oil marketer Rubis Energie, formerly KenolKobil, has been ordered to pay a former employee Sh3.76 million for unfair dismissal four years ago.
The High Court said the firm erred in sending Kenneth Ndumbi on leave, disabling his access to company systems and expecting him to respond to ‘show cause’ letters that needed him to access the same system to prepare a response.
KenolKobil was faulted for relying on suspicion to deny an employee access to the system that would have helped him get documents he needed to mount his defence.
“The respondent (KenolKobil) so short-circuited the disciplinary process that the final outcome was a sham. The charges against the claimant were, therefore, not proved at the shop floor,” ruled judge Linnet Ndolo.
READ MORE
Huawei, charity partners to empower women with digital skills in Kenya
African ministers champion ICT adoption for sustainable growth
Digital lender Tala surpasses Sh300bn mobile loans as Kenyans borrow more
KCB beats Equity in profits race as earnings after tax hit Sh44.5b
Government back to drawing board after KRA misses tax targets
Adani plunges in Mumbai on founder's charges as Asian markets retreat
US govt calls for breakup of Google and Chrome
Huawei partners with Kenyan firm on artificial intelligence customer care solution
Shares of India's Adani Enterprises drop by 20pc after founder's US charges
Mr Ndumbi was an accountant at the firm.
He told the court that the company ordered him to take annual leave, disabled his login credentials, removed him and his family from the company medical scheme and blocked his fuel card—all before any hearing was held.
KenolKobil had told the court that Ndumbi did not participate in the investigations and was not allowed access to the Oracle System, allegedly because he would frustrate the process.
However, the judge ruled that Ndumbi’s position or perceived breaches could not be used as a valid reason to deny him the right to be heard in his defence.
"This line of evidence reveals that the respondent decided to violate the claimant’s right to fair hearing allegedly because he could not be trusted,” said Justice Ndolo.