A 16-year career ended after an insurer accused a senior employee of using her Minet medical cover for an ineligible relative. Safaricom conducted no independent investigation, but the court accepted the insurer’s findings and rejected her multimillion-shilling compensation claim.
For 16 years, Lynette Akinyi Oduor built her career at Safaricom, rising through the telecommunications company’s ranks.
Her employment ended abruptly in September 2021 following allegations involving a hospital visit and her medical insurance card.
The dispute eventually landed before the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi. Oduor challenged her summary dismissal, insisting she had committed no insurance misconduct.
But Justice Nelson Jorum Abuodha found that Safaricom had reasonable grounds for terminating her employment.
The court consequently dismissed her entire claim, including demands for compensation running into millions.
The judgement, delivered mid-October 2026, turned on competing accounts of events at Mater Hospital.
It also examined whether Safaricom had followed the law before ending her employment.
The Hospital Visit
Oduor joined Safaricom in September 2005 as a customer care representative.
She later became an Analyst–Experience Assurance Officer, earning a gross monthly salary of KSh203,632.79.
The controversy arose from a hospital visit on June 29, 2021. Safaricom alleged that Oduor’s cousin, Lilian Omondi, obtained treatment using Oduor’s medical insurance card.
The company maintained that Omondi was not an eligible dependant under its medical scheme.
It therefore considered the alleged use of the card serious employee misconduct.
Oduor offered a different account. She said abdominal pain had taken her to Mater Hospital, where Omondi accompanied her.
She further claimed the hospital misplaced or locked her card and demanded KSh8,300.
She also alleged that staff gave her an ultrasound report belonging to another patient.
Oduor denied deliberately allowing her cousin to access medical services through her insurance cover.
The disagreement prompted an investigation by Minet Insurance Brokers, Safaricom’s medical scheme administrator.
The Insurance Probe
Minet investigator Genson Mbae examined hospital records, smart-card information and available CCTV footage.
He also interviewed Oduor and several hospital employees during the investigation.
According to the investigation, hospital personnel identified Omondi as the person examined.
Staff reportedly distinguished the women through their clothing during the hospital visit.
A radiologist also noticed an apparent mismatch between the cardholder and the person scanned.
However, a nutritionist maintained that he had personally treated Oduor.
Minet concluded that the medical card had been misused. It recommended disciplinary action and suspension of the card, alongside further medical examination.
Yet the investigation had significant evidential gaps. Mbae had not interviewed Dr Wanjema, whose name appeared on medical documents.
He also failed to obtain statements from Mater Hospital staff or produce the CCTV footage in court.
Omondi declined to provide a statement. Mbae had not witnessed the hospital incident himself.
More importantly, Safaricom’s human resources witness, Odhiambo Ooko, admitted the company conducted no independent investigation.
Safaricom relied on the findings supplied by Minet.
Despite those weaknesses, the court accepted the investigation as adequate.
It reasoned that Safaricom had delegated administration and investigation of the medical scheme to Minet.
Dismissal Upheld
The court also examined inconsistencies in Oduor’s own account and supporting medical documents. Two forms carried contradictory hospital stamps despite relating to visits she described differently.
One form dated June 28 bore Mater Hospital’s stamp, although Oduor claimed she visited AAR. Another dated June 29 carried an AAR stamp, despite her account placing that visit at Mater.
Both documents named Dr Wanjema, who was reportedly at AAR on both dates. Mater’s invoice, meanwhile, identified Dr R.K. Bor as Oduor’s attending doctor.
The judge also questioned inconsistencies in Oduor’s account of the hospital consultations.
She had not reported the alleged card problem or sought reimbursement for the KSh8,300 payment.
Nor had she returned the allegedly incorrect ultrasound report. The court considered these circumstances alongside the insurer’s findings.
Safaricom issued a show-cause letter on August 17, 2021. Oduor responded and attended disciplinary hearings on September 7 and 15.
She was informed of her right to attend with a fellow employee. However, she attended the hearings alone.
The company dismissed her on September 23, 2021. Its letter also informed her of a ten-day window to appeal, which she did not pursue.
The judge found that Safaricom had complied with the procedural requirements under Section 41 of the Employment Act.
The company had explained the allegations, considered her response and provided disciplinary hearings.
On the substantive justification, the court held that the employer needed reasonable grounds for its decision. It did not have to establish criminal guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“The Respondent had valid and reasonable grounds to terminate the services of the Claimant,” the judge concluded.
Millions Rejected
Oduor sought several remedies, including salary until retirement, compensation and service pay.
Her claims also included phone benefits, pension-related payments and damages for alleged discrimination.
The court rejected the demands, finding no basis for compensation over unfair termination. It also dismissed her discrimination claim because she had not identified comparable employees.
Her claim for salary until retirement was equally unsuccessful. The court observed that employment does not ordinarily guarantee a lifetime salary.
READ ALSO: Mayfair Insurance Ordered to Pay KSh 64.85 Million After Court Rejects Arson Claims
It further found that NSSF and NHIF membership excluded her from service pay under Section 35(6). Her phone benefit had ceased with her employment, while pension-related claims belonged before the relevant scheme.
The court noted that terminal dues of KSh76,362.30 had been paid in October 2021. It also observed that Safaricom had already issued her certificate of service.
Oduor’s 16 years of service and clean disciplinary record did not change the outcome.
The judge considered the alleged misconduct sufficiently serious to undermine the employment relationship.
The court dismissed the claim with costs.
Importantly, the ruling determined whether Safaricom had lawful grounds for dismissal. It did not amount to a criminal conviction for insurance fraud.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
