The High Court has awarded a former G4S employee Sh3.2 million for unfair dismissal, ruling that employers have no legal grounds to prohibit romantic relationships or marriages between consenting employees. Justice James Rika emphasized that workplace romances should be allowed to develop naturally, declaring policies that ban such relationships as unconstitutional.
The judge pointed out that these policies invade employees’ privacy rights, which are protected under Article 31 of the Constitution. “Every person has the right to privacy, and sexual relationships are private,” he affirmed. Rika remarked, “It is a hare
Finding that the former G4S manager was unfairly dismissed, the judge ruled that the company failed to provide a valid reason for terminating his contract, violating Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
The manager had been employed since March 3, 2000, and his contract was terminated on December 22, 2020, leaving him with eight years until retirement. The court noted that he had not caused or contributed to the circumstances leading to his dismissal.
“It is declared that termination was unfair, for lack of a valid reason. The claimant is granted compensation for unfair termination, equivalent to twelve months’ salary, totaling Sh3,244,800,” the judge stated.
The manager had sued G4S in 2021 for his dismissal. Initially hired as a management trainee in 2000, he was appointed acting district manager in Nakuru in 2001 and became regional operations manager in Nairobi in 2018. At the time of his termination, his last gross monthly salary was Sh270,400.
Before his dismissal, he received a letter requesting an explanation regarding potential disciplinary action. He was accused of influencing the irregular transfer of a junior guard, making sexual advances towards her, and engaging in financial transactions with her.
The manager denied all allegations, and the company’s human resources director instructed him to undergo DNA testing at his own expense to determine if he was the father of the junior employee’s daughter. The test results came back negative, yet G4S still terminated his contract based on the sexual harassment allegations.
The judge clarified that the transfer of the guard fell under the jurisdiction of the Customer Service Manager (CSM), and stated, “The claimant did not influence her transfer.” Thus, the court concluded that G4S’s actions were unjustified and reaffirmed the manager’s right to compensation for unfair dismissal.
brained law or policy that would seek to outlaw the affairs of the heart. Employers must allow Bill and Melinda Gates within their undertakings to grow and find each other while continuing to be productive in the business.”
The case arose when a former G4S operations branch manager was sued by the company for unfair termination after being accused of sexually harassing a female junior employee. Rika noted that prohibiting employees from pursuing romantic relationships constitutes a violation of their fundamental freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, as outlined in Article 25(a) of the Constitution.
“Nothing is more degrading than for a third party, an employer, to intermeddle in a love relationship between two consenting adult employees,” he stated.
The judge also highlighted that if the relationship had created a conflict of interest, G4S should have charged the manager with breaching the company’s conflict of interest policy, rather than dismissing him without investigation.
In his ruling, Rika criticized G4S for further constitutional violations by requiring married employees to disclose their marriages to the company. He noted that the company’s policy stipulated that if a marriage occurred after November 2020, one of the spouses must resign.
The court pointed out that G4S’s Sexual Harassment Policy, which aligns with the definition of sexual harassment in Section 6 of the Employment Act, aimed to educate employees about potential harassment but inadvertently infringed on their rights.
The judge noted that the guard returned from maternity leave and reported to her Customer Service Manager (CSM), Peter Gakuo, who merely asked the claimant if it was acceptable to transfer her to Coca-Cola Upper Hill. Coca-Cola had requested a female guard to serve as a receptionist.
The guard was dismissed by G4S for allegedly providing false information to the company, claiming that the manager was the father of her daughter. The manager was subsequently terminated based on this same false information. He accused G4S of not adhering to its own disciplinary policy, the Employment Act, and the Constitution, arguing that no valid reason was presented to justify his dismissal.
He asserted that the disciplinary procedure was fundamentally flawed and suggested that the disciplinary committee had a vested interest in the outcome.
In response, G4S argued that the termination was justified and based on valid reasons. The company maintained that the manager had engaged in sexual harassment, which violated its Africa region employee handbook. The handbook includes a clause prohibiting all staff from influencing or attempting to influence an employee’s employment status by coercing them into sexual advances, which G4S cited as a basis for the manager’s dismissal.
