Omollo v Naivasha Self-Service Stores Limited & another (Petition E009 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2527 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the petition disclosed a reasonable cause of action and proper allegations of constitutional contravention
- 2.Whether the events of 26.12.2023 amounted to harassment and unfair treatment in violation of the cited constitutional provisions
- 3.Whether the petitioner was entitled to the remedies prayed for
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition disclosed a reasonable cause of action despite grounds of opposition
The petition disclosed a reasonable cause of action and properly pleaded constitutional contraventions; the grounds of opposition collapsed.
The petition set out clear allegations of harassment, intimidation and forced photography on 26.12.2023, and pleaded contraventions of Articles 25, 28, 31 and 41. The respondent admitted an employment relationship. The court held the grounds of opposition, including the constitutional avoidance argument, were not established at the threshold stage since the petition as pleaded disclosed a cause of action.
Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated on 26.12.2023
No violation established; the respondent was exercising proper employer's prerogative over an employee who breached purchasing procedures.
The petitioner did not exhibit the alleged photographs, nor show any threat to publish to third parties. The evidence showed she bought under-weighed picnic bites, admitted the breach in a letter, and faced ordinary disciplinary control including show-cause, hearing and dismissal. The court found the alleged events constituted legitimate supervision and disciplinary control, not harassment or degrading treatment, and that the rights pleaded were not contravened.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to the remedies sought
No remedies were due as no violation or discrimination was established and the SOP manual claim failed.
Since the court found no contravention of the Bill of Rights, the declaratory and damages prayers failed. The claim for the SOP Manual failed because the petitioner did not show she had requested it and been refused under internal procedures. The discrimination claim failed for want of evidence, so all prayers in the petition were refused and the petition dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- An employer supervising and exercising disciplinary control over an employee does not, without more, violate the employee's constitutional rights.
- A petition alleging constitutional contravention must be proved by evidence; the petitioner bears the burden of establishing the violation.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the respondent against the petitioner for dismissal of the petition
- 2.No orders on costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitutional jurisdiction under the Bill of Rights invoked by the petition alleging contravention of Articles 25, 28, 31 and 41 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Declaration of violation of Articles 28 and 31 (privacy and dignity)
No evidence photos were taken or threatened to be published; respondent exercised proper employer's prerogative
Permanent injunction restraining publication and use of the petitioner's image
No evidence respondent intended publication to third parties
Compensation/damages for taking the picture without authority, discrimination, and violation of fundamental rights
No contravention established; discrimination not proved by evidence
Supply of the Standard Operating Procedure Manual
Petitioner did not show she requested it and the respondent failed to provide it
Costs
No orders on costs - each party to bear own costs of the proceedings
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In conclusion, judgment is hereby entered for the respondent against the petitioner for dismissal of the petition with no orders on costs.
The Court returns that the petitioner has failed to establish that events on 26.12.2023 amounted to harassment and unfair treatment in violation of the cited constitutional provisions.
the respondent was at all material times engaged in proper employer's prerogative to supervise and exercise disciplinary control over the employee
The Court has considered all the circumstances of the case and the obtaining otherwise cordial employment relationship up to the time of the dispute herein and there will be no orders on costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omollo v Naivasha Self-Service Stores Limited & another (Petition E009 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2527 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Petition dated 26.01.2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2527/eng@2024-10-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.