Kenyan courtrooms have witnessed every shade of human drama. From billion-shilling frauds, grisly crimes to explosive family feuds, the pursuit of justice has often unfolded like a gripping courtroom TV drama series.
But as more Kenyans turn to litigation, judges are increasingly finding themselves presiding over disputes that seem better suited for a candid conversation than a courtroom. Cases sparked by suspicion, bruised egos or simple misunderstandings are steadily making their way before the bench.
We take a look at some of the most flimsy cases decided in recent years, disputes that, in hindsight, might have been settled with a dose of common sense or, better still, over a cup of coffee.
Driver fired over a love affair with colleague
Dominic Mutuku Mulavu, who had been a driver at the NGO for 12 years, was summarily dismissed in May 2024 for allegedly breaching the organisation’s Safeguarding Policy when he fell in love with a community worker and beneficiary, Mercy Kailu.
The employer claimed he had engaged in a prohibited relationship with a ‘beneficiary’, which was against the company’s policy.
Mr Mulavu's employment was terminated over claims that he had breached the policy by engaging in a prohibited romantic relationship with Ms Kailu.
However, evidence adduced before the court showed that their three-year relationship was consensual and intended for marriage.
The court found the dismissal was substantively unfair. While the court observed that the disciplinary process met procedural standards, the employer had misapplied its own policy to a private and lawful relationship.
Applying the reasonable responses test, the judge held that no reasonable employer would terminate employment in such circumstances.
“From the record, it is clear that the primary objective of the Policy is to protect children and vulnerable adults from sexual exploitation and abuse, and to prevent intentional or unintentional harm, particularly in respect of adult beneficiaries. Evidently, the Policy does not explicitly prohibit sexual relationships with members of the community.
Court has ordered World Vision Kenya to pay Sh790,398 to former employee dismissed over romantic relationship.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
“It is this court’s view that the Policy’s intent is well-founded, particularly given the Respondent’s (World Vision) work involving engagement with children and vulnerable adults. All things considered, the court is not satisfied that the Respondent has established that the reason given for terminating the Claimant’s employment was valid, fair, and reasonable,” Justice Stella Rutto noted.
Former I&M Bank employee fired over suspicion
Last week, I&M Bank was ordered by the court to pay compensation of Sh1.1 million to a former employee who was dismissed over suspicion.
In its analysis, the court determined that the former employee was dismissed without any proof that he had done anything wrong. In its judgment, the court also faulted the bank for failing to subject the former employee to a proper disciplinary process before dismissing him. The credit analyst was unfairly fired, with the bank accusing him of improperly accessing a joint US dollar account belonging to one of the bank’s directors and his spouse.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court stated that the termination of Tom Mongare was unfair as the bank relied on an incomplete decision that left critical questions unanswered. At the time of his dismissal on May 20, 2024, Mr Mongare was attached to the bank’s personal and business division and was earning a gross monthly salary of Sh105,688.
Mr Mongare had pleaded his innocence when the accusations were made against him, telling the court his job description required him to account for turnover and transactions between the company and its directors.
The bank had claimed Mr Mongare had not been cleared to access the account, claiming that the director's spouse was later contacted by strangers who appeared to possess confidential banking information about her. The court could not find any evidence connecting Mr Mongare to the alleged disclosure of confidential information.
“There is nothing beyond suspicion connecting the claimant to the disclosure of the customer’s private details to any third party. The sensitivity of an allegation, if anything, calls for more scrupulous observance of an employee's procedural entitlements, not their suspicion,” the court noted.
Night guard fired for sleeping at work
In 2021, an Employment and Labour Relations Court in Kisumu awarded a security guard Sh891,072 in compensation for wrongful dismissal. Evans Nyamboso was dismissed from JRS Group Security Limited on March 30 2016, after working at the firm for 12 years.
His supervisor, Patrick Kiptoo, told court that Mr Nyamboso was fired after he found him sleeping at his workstation. Mr Kiptoo said he had visited the guard’s station at 10pm and hooted at the gate, but there was no response.
“I even banged the gate, and there was no response. The caretaker at the place went round the compound and found Mr Nyamboso asleep,” Mr Kiptoo said.
In his defence, Mr Nyamboso told the court he experienced chest problems on that fateful day and could not concentrate, and hence took a nap to try to recharge when his senior visited. He was allowed to seek medication; however, after resuming duties, he was informed that his services had been terminated.
In the judgment, the court faulted the firm for abusing the rights of the guard, stating that as an employer the firm had abused Mr Nyamboso’s right to leave days, minimum wage and fair hearing before the dismissal.
“Mr Nyamboso has worked faithfully at JRS for 12 years. He worked overtime without pay, was underpaid and was not granted annual leave. He was not paid terminal benefits, yet he did not contribute to the termination,” the judge noted.
Ex-employee who resigned over demotion awarded Sh3 million
In February 2025, an Employment and Labour Court ordered German firm Beiersdorf East Africa Limited, a manufacturer of skin care products including popular brands such as Nivea, to compensate former employee Nancy Muchiri Sh3 million. Ms Muchiri resigned from her job - she was redeployed to a different role, which she argued was a demotion.
Ms Muchiri was able to convince the court that her former employer made her working environment difficult for her to continue executing her mandate, forcing her to resign, and was awarded Sh2,759,332.
The court determined that Ms Muchiri had been constructively dismissed by the Nairobi-based manufacturer, where she had served for close to 18 years.
In her submissions, Ms Muchiri told the court she resigned after the company reassigned her job description by removing her from the Demand and Supply Planner department, where she had risen in ranks, to Customer Service and Logistics Coordinator without consulting her, just days after she had returned to work from maternity leave.
In her view, this redeployment was a demotion. The court agreed, ruling that the German-owned company had violated the Employment Act by unilaterally altering her role and working conditions.
The company had in its defense argued the redployment was a promotion as Ms Muchiri was going to take up a more senior role.
A petitioner has his case thrown out for drafting court submissions using AI
The petitioner Nayan Mansukhlal Salva has filed an application seeking to freeze part of the proceedings before the court.
But even before the judge could make any determination as to whether the petition was on merit, he took notice of the AI usage, striking out the case and directing that the petitioner, if he may wish to file a fresh petition, do so properly.
In the judge’s view, the reliance on AI in drafting some of the documents in the case introduced flaws that rendered the application defective.
Nayan Mansukhlal Salva had filed the petition against the Kenya Psychiatric Association seeking to suspend the court’s earlier procedural directives in the matter. He had sued the association after it allegedly failed to comply with a directive issued by the Commission on Administrative Justice, ordering it to provide him with information he had
However, in his ruling, Justice Mwamunye focused on the manner in which the Notice of Motion and the supporting affidavit had been prepared.
“An applicant moves the court either in their own words or in the words drawn by Counsel or any other lawful representative. As the law stands today, computer-generated or outputs of 'artificial-intelligence' cannot be a proper substitute for human-drawn documents,” the court ruled.
A party must draw and file the documents of their own accord and by their own hand or through their legal representatives. The defects cannot be cured by an amendment. Consequently, and for the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner's application and its Supporting Affidavit are hereby struck out with no costs on the same.”
