A Nairobi court has ordered a security firm to pay its former employee Ksh35 million for firing her after she allegedly rejected her boss’ s****l advances.
Saida Rashid Mbonika filed a l******t at the Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Court against the G4S Company and its Human Resource Director Dominic Ooko after the company dismissed her without following due procedure.
Free working environment
In her application, Ms Mbonika told the court that she was employed by G4S Security Company in 1996 and was working in the information technology department.
She said until 2006, when her services were terminated, she was the IT manager and was earning Ksh240,000 per month in addition to other allowances.
Ms Mbonika said the company was supposed to give give her, as an employee, a conducive working environment free of s****l discrimination and gender discrimination.
See Also: How to avoid messy office romance
She told the court that the company advertised her position in 2003 while she still held it. Mr Ooko hired a man who was given another position after she questioned the move.
The court heard that between 2005 and 2006 Ooko made s****l advances and persistently commented about her physical appearance and dressing style, even after Ms Mbonika asked him to refrain.
She said the second respondent always sought her company and when she refused, he started frustrating her on various personnel issues.
The matter was later reported to her superior who directed that G4S company managing director Ken Wood to resolve the case.
But the matter was dismissed by Mr Wood who said the issue was trivial and indicated that Mr Ooko was free to act against the claimant as he deemed fit, calling Ms Mbonika “prickly and over-sensitive”.
While delivering the judgement, Justice Nelson Abuodha noted that the first respondent neglected to initiate any investigations into the claimant’s complaints. He stated that G4S showed bias and discrimination by abetting and condoning Mr Ooko’s u******l and i*****l actions.
The respondents denied the charges levelled against them by the claimant.
“Money cannot adequately compensate the w*****d feeling but can reasonably provide a convenient mechanism for the person affected to pick up the pieces and move on. The claimant saw a connection between her dismissal and her complaint over s****l harassment,” the judge stated.