For nearly seven years, the dismissal of former Safaricom executive Brian Njoroge Wamatu has remained entangled in criminal investigations, constitutional petitions and civil litigation.
Now, the Employment and Labour Relations Court has delivered its verdict, finding that the telecommunications giant acted lawfully when it summarily dismissed the senior manager over allegations of mishandling confidential subscriber information.
Justice Benard Manani dismissed Wamatu’s suit in its entirety, ruling that Safaricom had both a valid reason and a procedurally fair basis to terminate his employment.
The judge also threw out claims that the company had defamed its former employee, saying the claim was filed too late and lacked supporting evidence.
The decision closes another chapter in one of Kenya’s most high-profile corporate data disputes, whose ripple effects have stretched beyond employment law into criminal prosecutions and parallel High Court litigation over alleged subscriber data breaches.
Wamatu joined Safaricom in November 2008 as a Value Added Services Product Manager before steadily climbing the corporate ladder.
By 2019, he had become Head of Regional Expansion, earning approximately KSh1.2 million monthly after more than a decade of what he described as exemplary service.
That career unravelled dramatically in June 2019.
According to court records, Wamatu was arrested while dining in Nairobi before investigators questioned him over alleged computer-related offences.
He was later charged alongside another former Safaricom employee in criminal proceedings arising from allegations that confidential subscriber information had been improperly accessed and offered for sale.
Wamatu insisted throughout the employment case that Safaricom had orchestrated his arrest to make him a scapegoat following internal corporate disputes. He further argued that the company denied him adequate time to defend himself before dismissing him.
Court Analysis
Safaricom painted a sharply different picture.
The company maintained that internal investigations uncovered evidence suggesting Wamatu collaborated with colleagues to access confidential subscriber information and sensitive executive compensation records without authority.
It argued that the findings justified both criminal complaints and disciplinary action.
Central to the dispute was a forensic investigation report prepared during the company’s internal inquiry.
The report concluded that Wamatu had colluded with two other individuals to obtain confidential company information for sale to third parties.
Investigators reached that conclusion after analysing communications recovered from mobile devices belonging to those under investigation.
Justice Manani emphasised that employment disputes require a different legal threshold from criminal trials.
“The reason or reasons for termination of a contract are the matters that the employer at the time of termination genuinely believed to exist,” the judge observed while citing Section 43(2) of the Employment Act.
Relying on previous Court of Appeal authority, the judge added that employers need not conduct “a near forensic examination” or prove misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before dismissing an employee.
Instead, they must demonstrate an honest and reasonable belief founded on available evidence.
Applying that standard, the court found Safaricom’s investigation report provided sufficient material to support a genuine belief that Wamatu had committed serious misconduct warranting dismissal.
Fair Process
Equally important was whether Safaricom followed due process.
Wamatu argued that the disciplinary hearing was predetermined because it proceeded while he attended a Directorate of Criminal Investigations meeting under court orders.
He claimed investigators held him until shortly before the disciplinary session began, making attendance impossible.
However, Safaricom presented testimony from the investigating officer stating that the DCI meeting ended around noon, leaving four hours before the disciplinary hearing scheduled for 4 p.m.
The judge preferred the company’s evidence after identifying inconsistencies in testimony presented by Wamatu’s witness regarding the meeting’s duration.
“From this evidence, it is apparent that the Claimant’s engagement with the DCI ended around 12.00 Noon. Yet, he did not attempt to make it to the disciplinary session,” Justice Manani concluded.
The court also rejected Wamatu’s argument that Safaricom ignored its own disciplinary procedures.
Although the company’s disciplinary manual encourages informal resolution for minor misconduct, the judge observed that allegations amounting to gross misconduct are expressly reserved for formal disciplinary proceedings capable of resulting in summary dismissal.
“The fact that the Claimant did not take advantage of the opportunity to attend the disciplinary hearing cannot be blamed on the Respondent,” the judge added.
Claims Fail
The court similarly dismissed Wamatu’s defamation claim.
Justice Manani held that actions for defamation must be filed within one year under the Defamation Act. Since Wamatu sued approximately two years after the alleged publications, the claim was already statute-barred.
Even if filed in time, the claim would still have failed because Wamatu produced no independent witnesses showing his reputation had actually been damaged by Safaricom’s conduct, the judge ruled.
The court further rejected his claim for compensation over employee share ownership benefits after finding no convincing evidence supporting the alleged entitlement.
Wider Lessons
Beyond determining one executive’s fate, the ruling reinforces an increasingly settled principle in Kenyan employment law.
Employers confronting allegations involving confidential corporate information, cybersecurity or internal misconduct need not await criminal convictions before taking disciplinary action.
READ ALSO: Court Says JOOUST Rightly Fired KSh610,000-a-Month HR Manager
What matters is whether they possess credible evidence creating a genuine belief that misconduct occurred and whether employees receive a fair opportunity to answer those allegations.
Consequently, Wamatu walked away without compensation after the court dismissed every claim in his suit while ordering each side to bear its own legal costs.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
