Nairobi Law Firm Ordered to Pay Over KSh5.4 Million After Pregnant Secretary was Slapped, Strangled and Assaulted at Workplace

A routine typing mistake inside a Nairobi law firm spiralled into a terrifying assault that left a pregnant secretary bleeding, hospitalised and fearing for her unborn child.

She was slapped repeatedly, pushed against a wall, and strangled until she struggled to breathe, then struck in the abdomen by a wheeled office chair allegedly shoved towards her by the very advocate who supervised her work.

Nearly nine years later, the Employment and Labour Relations Court has ruled that the violence not only shattered Lilian Jebitok Sang’s sense of safety but also destroyed the employment relationship beyond repair.

In a strongly worded judgement, Justice Jemimah Keli held that Daniel Ochieng Ogola, trading as Ogola Okello & Co. Advocates, failed in his legal duty to protect his employee from repeated abuse by Job Collins Odhiambo Ochieng, the firm’s senior associate advocate and Sang’s immediate supervisor.

The court found that the firm’s inaction created an intolerable workplace, amounting to constructive dismissal and multiple constitutional violations.

The court awarded Sang KSh5,563,134, comprising KSh5 million for violations of her constitutional rights, KSh516,000 as compensation for unfair constructive dismissal, KSh29,769 in notice pay and KSh17,365 for accrued leave.

After allowing recovery of a KSh150,000 staff loan claimed by the employer, the court entered a net award of KSh5,413,134, together with costs and interest.

Far beyond the monetary award, however, the judgement delivers one unmistakable message. Employers who tolerate violence inside their workplaces may bear legal responsibility for the consequences.

A Culture of Fear

Sang joined the law firm in October 2011 as a secretary and remained there for almost six years. She earned a final monthly salary of KSh43,000 and worked directly under Ochieng, a senior associate advocate responsible for assigning and supervising much of her work.

According to evidence accepted by the court, the relationship had deteriorated long before the July 2017 incident.

Sang said she frequently endured insults whenever her supervisor became dissatisfied with her work.

On one occasion in 2015, she alleged he slapped her inside the office after accusing her of poor performance.

She reported that incident to the firm’s proprietor, Daniel Ogola. Instead of disciplinary action, she testified that she was advised to understand her supervisor’s temperament and continue working with him.

That response would later become central to the court’s findings.

Justice Keli concluded that an employer cannot excuse repeated abusive conduct merely because it is associated with an employee’s personality or temper.

One Mistake, then Violence

The breaking point came on the evening of July 13, 2017.

Court records show Sang had prepared legal documents assigned by her supervisor but made an error while typing pleadings.

When Ochieng returned to the office, prosecutors said his frustration quickly turned violent.

The court found that he insulted Sang, slapped her, shoved her against a wall and wrapped his hands around her neck until she struggled to breathe.

The violence escalated despite the fact that Sang was about three months pregnant.

Another advocate attempted to intervene and calm the situation.

The confrontation nevertheless continued before a wheeled office chair was pushed towards Sang, striking her abdomen.

She immediately began bleeding.

She was rushed to Nairobi Women’s Hospital before later being transferred for further treatment.

The assault ultimately resulted in criminal proceedings, where Ochieng was convicted of causing actual bodily harm.

Employer Denied Responsibility

Both respondents denied liability throughout the proceedings.

Ogola maintained that Sang had been a difficult employee whose performance was poor and whose resignation was voluntary.

He argued that she abandoned her employment before the firm could investigate what had happened.

Ochieng similarly denied assaulting his colleague and instead portrayed her as the aggressor during the confrontation.

Those arguments ultimately collapsed under the weight of another court’s findings.

Before the labour dispute concluded, the supervising advocate had already been convicted in a criminal court of causing Sang actual bodily harm.

Justice Keli held that the criminal conviction established that the assault had indeed occurred and rejected attempts to shift blame onto the claimant.

A Toxic Workplace

The judgement turned on a broader legal question than the assault itself.

Did the employer provide a safe working environment?

The court answered that question firmly in the negative.

Justice Keli found that the employer had failed to address earlier complaints, failed to protect the claimant and failed to create a workplace free from violence.

Those failures, the court ruled, fundamentally breached the employment relationship.

The judge concluded that no reasonable employee would have been expected to return to work under the supervision of a person who had violently assaulted her.

That finding formed the basis of the declaration that Sang had been constructively dismissed.

Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer’s conduct makes continued employment objectively intolerable, leaving resignation as the only realistic option.

Rights Beyond Employment

The court also found that the case extended well beyond ordinary labour law.

Justice Keli ruled that Sang’s constitutional rights had been violated, including her rights to dignity, security of the person and fair labour practices.

The judgement referenced growing international recognition that every worker is entitled to a workplace free from violence and harassment.

It also delivered unusually pointed criticism of the legal profession.

The judge questioned how advocates sworn to uphold the rule of law could tolerate violence within their own chambers.

That observation gave the judgement a significance extending beyond one law firm or one employment dispute.

A Warning to Employers

Employment lawyers say the decision strengthens the principle that employers must actively protect workers from bullying, harassment and physical abuse.

Simply distancing themselves from violent employees may no longer be enough.

Where complaints are ignored, investigations delayed or abusive behaviour tolerated, employers could themselves face substantial financial exposure.

The ruling also reinforces that workplace violence may trigger overlapping consequences under criminal law, constitutional law and employment law.

For employers, that creates far greater legal risk than treating such incidents merely as internal disciplinary matters.

A Precedent With Lasting Impact

Kenyan courts have increasingly recognised psychological safety as an essential component of fair labour practices.

Justice Keli’s decision pushes that principle further by making clear that physical violence fundamentally destroys trust between employer and employee when left unchecked.

READ ALSO: I&M Bank Ordered to Pay Ex-Credit Analyst KSh1.14 Million After Court Finds Dismissal Was Unfair

For Sang, the ruling closes a legal battle that began with a frightening confrontation inside what should have been one of the safest professional environments imaginable.

For employers across Kenya, it serves as an unmistakable warning.

Violence at work is no longer simply an unfortunate incident between colleagues.

When employers fail to prevent it, investigate it or act against it, they may ultimately find themselves answering not only to their employees but also to the courts.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.