Employees are not expected to endure humiliation, unfair treatment and persistent disregard of their concerns simply to keep their jobs.
That was the key message from the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Mombasa after it awarded a former logistics executive nearly Sh5.9 million, finding that her employer's conduct had made her continued employment intolerable.
In a judgment that could resonate across Kenyan boardrooms and human resource departments, Justice Ocharo Kebira ruled that workplace relationships are built on trust, dignity and mutual respect, warning that employers cannot ignore employees' concerns with impunity.
“An employee cannot be expected to give the best to an employer that has demonstrated, by a sustained pattern of conduct rather than by any single dramatic act, that his or her concerns will not be heard and his or her position will not be respected,” the court ruled.
The case involved Larissa Manson Hart, who served as Mombasa branch manager of Schenker Limited from 2013 until her resignation in February 2017.
While the company maintained that she resigned voluntarily, the court found that her departure was the culmination of a year-long pattern of mistreatment that included public reprimands, exclusion from decision-making, disciplinary action imposed without a hearing and repeated failure by management to respond to her complaints.
At the centre of the judgment is a broader principle about modern workplaces that not every employee who leaves a job does so freely.
In some cases, management conduct can create conditions so difficult that an employee effectively has no realistic option but to walk away.
In his August 10, 2026 ruling, Justice Kebira noted that employment is more than an exchange of labour for wages and depends on a minimum level of trust and good faith between employer and employee.
The judge found that this trust was gradually destroyed through a series of actions that, viewed individually, might have appeared manageable but collectively became impossible to ignore.
Judge rules that workplace relationships are built on trust, dignity and mutual respect, warning that employers cannot ignore employees' concerns with impunity.
Photo credit: File
According to the court, Ms Hart's troubles began in 2016 when she was publicly reprimanded during management conference calls and later found herself reporting to another employee despite previously reporting directly to the managing director.
The court also examined a final warning letter issued to her in October 2016, which the judge found had been imposed without allowing her to be heard.
What particularly troubled the court was the company's response to her efforts to resolve the situation.
Court documents show that Ms Hart repeatedly wrote to management challenging the warning letter and raising concerns about her treatment.
She also escalated the matter to senior regional and international executives within the company group, but received no meaningful intervention.
The final trigger came when the company declined her request for an employment confirmation letter to support a visa application for her son's swimming competition in South Africa.
Viewed on its own, the court said, the incident may not have justified resignation. However, after months of frustration and unanswered appeals, it became the “last straw”.
In one of the significant findings of the judgment, Justice Kebira stressed that employees are not required to tolerate workplace conditions that systematically undermine their dignity and professional standing.
The court found that the cumulative effect of public humiliation, unexplained restructuring, disciplinary sanctions imposed without procedural fairness and management's continued silence had destroyed the trust necessary for the employment relationship to continue.
“The effect of this conduct, viewed as a whole, was such that the Claimant could not reasonably have been expected to continue enduring it,” the judge said.
The court further found that by February 2017, the relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and employee had broken down completely.
The judgment is likely to be closely watched by employers because it says that courts will look beyond formal job titles and salary levels when assessing workplace disputes.
Although Ms Hart's title and pay were not reduced, the court found that behaviour, management style and failure to address employee grievances can be just as significant in determining whether a work environment has become untenable.
According to the judgment, Ms Hart joined the company in February 2013 as Mombasa branch manager and reported directly to the managing director. For more than three years, she said, her relationship with management was cordial and professional.
That changed in 2016, when Ms Hart told the court that she began experiencing what she described as public humiliation by the company's managing director during management conference calls.
The court heard that she was shouted at and embarrassed in front of colleagues during conference calls in March and September 2016.
At the same time, the company altered the Mombasa branch's reporting structure. Although she remained branch manager, she would no longer report directly to the managing director but instead to another employee.
Ms Hart viewed the move as a demotion and repeatedly sought an explanation, but said her concerns were ignored.
The company issued her with a final warning letter accusing her of insubordination. Ms Hart protested the decision in writing and later sent an open letter to senior regional and global executives within the Schenker Group detailing her grievances and seeking intervention.
According to the court, none of the executives responded.
The event that ultimately triggered her departure involved a request unrelated to her day-to-day duties.
In February 2017, Ms Hart asked the company for a letter confirming her employment to support a visa application so she could accompany her 10-year-old son to a swimming competition in South Africa.
The ruling also highlights the importance of internal grievance mechanisms. The court noted that the employee had made repeated attempts to seek help and resolve the dispute before finally resigning.
The court awarded Ms Hart Sh1.527 million in notice pay, Sh4.072 million in compensation and Sh296,832 for accrued leave days, bringing the total award to about Sh5.9 million, excluding interest.
The company's counterclaim seeking Sh1.527 million from Ms Hart for allegedly failing to give notice was also dismissed.
