Simon Kabu and Sarah Njoki’s former nanny has moved to the Court of Appeal after the Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed her case against the estranged couple, which alleged sexual harassment, violation of dignity, and invasion of privacy.
The woman had sued the separated couple - directors of Bonfire Adventures travel agency - for more than Sh28 million, claiming that her rights had been violated, including damage to her reputation after being portrayed as a husband snatcher while working as their employee.
In December 2024, she was thrust into the limelight following the alleged leakage of CCTV footage showing an altercation between her and Sarah. The footage sparked a trending social media discussion on the marital woes of the Bonfire Adventures directors.
In her suit before the Employment and Labour Relations Court, JK (the woman) sought Sh7 million for alleged sexual harassment by Sarah, Sh7 million for breach of confidentiality over Simon’s release of the CCTV footage, and Sh14 million for violation of privacy and dignity by both Simon and Sarah.
On Thursday, Justice Bernard Odongo Manani ruled in favour of an objection filed by Simon, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
“After evaluating the pleadings and submissions filed by the parties against the applicable statutes and case law, I find that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. As such, the matter is struck out,” ruled Justice Manani.
Lawyers Mwenda Njagi, representing Bonfire Adventures, and Kamoing Advocates, acting for Simon, welcomed the decision. However, JK’s lawyer, Harry Stephen Arunda, sought a review of the ruling.
In his detailed 20-page judgment, Justice Manani noted that JK had filed the case after her contract of service was terminated on October 15, 2024, following an out-of-court settlement with the Kabus. Consequently, there was no subsisting employment relationship, meaning the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
Bonfire Adventures proprietors Sarah and Simon Kabu show off their business award. PHOTO | FILE | NATION MEDIA GROUP
“This begs the question of whether this court is entitled to assume jurisdiction over the dispute. I think not. By virtue of the ELRC Act, this court can only entertain disputes stemming from an employment and labour relationship. Further, that relationship must have been subsisting at the time the cause of action arose,” the judge stated.
Justice Manani also ruled that since the contract of service was between JK and Bonfire Adventures, a limited company (first respondent), the actions of Simon (second respondent) and Sarah (third respondent) - who were not her direct employers - could not be litigated before the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
“The fact that the first respondent (Bonfire Adventures) had employed the claimant did not make her an employee of the second (Simon) and third (Sarah) respondents. In effect, there was no employment relationship between her and the second and third respondents. The claimant’s grievances, having arisen from the acts of the second and third respondents, who were not her employers, cannot be subject to litigation,” the judge ruled.
Further, the judge noted that since the nanny’s salary was below Sh80,000 - she earned Sh36,000 - the case ought to have been filed in the Magistrate’s Court, as per the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) Act, which grants magistrates the power to handle cases where salaries are below Sh80,000.
“Accordingly, this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case. It must be understood that jurisdiction is everything. Without it, the court cannot adjudicate a dispute. The suit ought to have been presented to the Magistrate’s Court,” the judge stated.
Despite this, Justice Manani acknowledged that the ELRC Act grants his court original jurisdiction over all employment and labour disputes, including those falling within the Magistrate’s Court’s purview.
“The judge, in his ruling, agrees that the ELRC, which is an extension of the High Court, has jurisdiction over all employment and labour disputes. If he had considered this, he would have transferred the matter to the Magistrate’s Court rather than striking it out. Striking out a case should be a last resort. This is one of the reasons we are aggrieved by his decision. We have already filed a notice of appeal against the entire ruling at the Court of Appeal,” JK’s lawyer, Mr Arunda, stated.
When filing the suit, JK claimed that her employment as a nanny and home-school teacher for the Kabus’ two children was a ruse to use social media to scapegoat her for the couple’s marital problems, which she said had predated her hiring.
The nanny, a trained teacher, alleged that shortly after taking the job on June 14, 2024, Sarah began accosting her with threats and accusations of having a sexual relationship with her estranged husband. JK claimed that Sarah eventually assaulted her, causing bodily harm, before firing her and throwing out her personal belongings from the couple’s marital home in the posh Edenville gated community on Kiambu Road. Sarah later moved out to live separately.
Houses in Edenville estate on Kiambu Road.
JK contends that despite reporting the case, Sarah was never charged with a criminal offence. She subsequently sought the intervention of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), who, after reviewing the CCTV footage, approved charges against Sarah on July 15, 2024. However, the charges were never pursued. Instead, she says, the ODPP persuaded her to enter into an out-of-court settlement with the Kabus.
As a result, she received Sh250,000 from Simon, with Sarah offering to wire an additional Sh100,000 to settle the matter and close the file.
JK claims she agreed to the deal under duress, alleging that investigating officers and the OCS in Kiambu pressured her into accepting the settlement.
After accepting the Kabus’ dispute resolution package, her contract of service was terminated, with confirmation that the CCTV footage had been deleted. However, on December 4, 2024, the same footage - supposedly deleted - began trending on social media.
JK accused Simon of leaking the video to bloggers, but Simon claimed he had mistakenly sent the footage to the Bonfire Adventures WhatsApp group while attempting to share it with his lawyer.
With the video trending, JK stated that the publication damaged her reputation, portraying her as a person of loose morals and a husband snatcher. As a result, she claimed her right to dignity had been violated.
