Sangare v International Planned Parenthood Federation & another

c. School costs $92,770 d. Compensation for unfair termination $102,662.64 Total $304,162.88 e. Costs of the suit and interest f. Any other relief as the Court may deem just. 4. The Respondents led a Memorandum of Response and Counterclaim dated 8th November 2023 admitting the employment relationship but denying that the termination was unlawful. They averred that the Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, namely unauthorized disclosure of condential information by sharing emails containing sensitive data with her husband, a third party and exhibiting conduct which brought the image of the 1st Respondent into disrepute. They further led a Counterclaim seeking damages for breach of condentiality, violation of privacy and defamation. 5. The Claimant led a Reply to the Memorandum of Response and Response to Counterclaim dated 28th November 2024, denying the alleged misconduct and contended that her dismissal was retaliatory and that the disciplinary process was procedurally awed. Evidence 6. The Claimant testied as CW1 on 11th March 2026 by adopting her Witness Statement of even dated 27th July 2023 and her Further Statement dated 31st October 2025 as evidence in chief. She also produced as exhibits 37 documents in the list of documents dated 27th July 2023. The 37 documents were marked as exhibits 1 to 37 respectively. 7. In brief, her evidence was that she was dismissed for giving information to a stranger, which she denied because the person was not a stranger to the organization. She contended that the disciplinary panel was not impartial and not properly constituted because it initially comprised one person, Mr. Varun Anand (Finance Director), and when she protested, another person, Ms. Manuelle Hurwitz from the Global Oce, was added. She argued that the panelists were conicted and therefore not impartial. 8. She further stated that the Appeal Committee comprised two persons from Europe with no representative from Kenya or Africa. She noted that while the sta manual is not clear, a representative of the local HR Department ought to have been involved, but there was no one from HR. 9. Regarding the meeting on 14th April 2023 (page 46 of her bundle), she stated that she was not accompanied by a fellow sta member and that such meeting is not provided for in the sta manual. After the meeting, she was served with a show cause letter. 10. She testied about misuse of funds by the 2nd Respondent, including that the 2nd Respondent was receiving more for housing than she was entitled to, misusing ocial car and fuel and failing to account for expenses. She referred to pages 115-120 and 135-174 of her bundle for supporting evidence. She stated that she provided this evidence to the disciplinary panel and Appeal panel but they ignored it. 11. She contended that the leaked information never went to outsiders but only to employees, including former sta who were still connected to the company network. She referred to the email at pages 37-45 of her bundle and stated that her husband, Mr. Sangaré, was a referee for the 2nd Respondent during her recruitment (page 75 of her bundle). She referred to pages 96-114 (WhatsApp correspondences) https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2520/eng@2026-09-24 2

page 2 of 13

showing that Mr. Sangaré had a relationship with the 1st Respondent, including reviewing agreements and standing in for sta when they were away. 12. Regarding her claim, she stated that page 15 of her bundle shows her reliefs and page 34 shows the notice of redundancy indicating total due to her as USD 76,958.58. She claimed that this gure excluded training package, repatriation costs and schooling of her children. She stated that she was forced to remain in Kenya for her children to nish school. 13. On cross-examination, she conrmed that she was the Head of Operations, a senior level job and that she read the sta handbook which was part of her contract. She conrmed that page 82 of the Respondents' trial bundle is the sta handbook and that clause 5.1 prohibits sta from divulging commercial and condential information. She acknowledged that the policy provides for whistleblowing and raising of concern. 14. She conrmed that on 12th April 2023 she received a letter/notice declaring her oce redundant and informing her that she was unsuccessful in her application. She conrmed that on 13th April 2023, an email from her husband, Mr. Sangaré, was sent to all sta of the 1st Respondent about the reorganization. She acknowledged that her husband was not an employee of the Respondent. 15. She admitted that she had shared emails with her husband before the realignment and that on page 145 is an email dated 4th April 2023 to all sta which she forwarded to her husband on 12th April 2023. She acknowledged that page 147 is her email forwarding condential information to her husband about the Nairobi oce. She conrmed that she never sought authority before sending it. 16. She stated that there was a reporting channel for concerns but it never worked. She conrmed that she did not le any copy of the reports she made but led documents to prove misuse of funds by the 2nd Respondent. She referred to page 115 as an email from nance and stated that the oce was using her husband and seeking his opinion. 17. On further cross-examination, she conrmed that her husband is not an employee of the 1st Respondent. She conrmed that page 37 of her bundle is the email her husband sent on 13th April 2023 containing email addresses of current and former sta. She stated that her husband was working closely with the company. 18. She conrmed that the disciplinary process was because she allegedly breached condentiality, not redundancy. She conrmed that disciplinary matters are under the sta manual. She acknowledged that page 52 of her bundle is the show cause letter dated 28th April 2023 setting out allegations. She conrmed she was still an employee and bound by the sta manual and was given until 5th May 2023 to respond. She conrmed that she was provided with resources to respond and that at page 57 she denied all allegations. 19. She conrmed that page 58 is a hearing notice dated 15th May 2023 setting out allegations and allowing her to be accompanied by another employee. She requested for time to prepare and was given days. She had issues with the composition of the disciplinary panel. She stated that the hearing was a pre-cooked exercise because her protest against it was never addressed. She agreed that she received an outcome of the appeal but maintained the process was unfair from beginning to end. 20. She conrmed that the African Region was not represented, her contract was linked to Kenyan law and the HR Department was not represented. She stated that page 46 is a transcript of the meeting on 14th April 2023, which was the beginning of her disciplinary process against her. She described the meeting as an online meeting where she felt like a prisoner. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2520/eng@2026-09-24 3

page 3 of 13

21. In re-examination, she stated that the sta manual does not provide for a meeting before an employee is given a show cause letter. When she protested against the disciplinary panel, she was referred to the Employment Act of Kenya without specifying the section. The Appeal was heard by persons outside the Africa Region and no HR representative was present. The hearing notice did not tell her to come with another employee or an advocate. 22. She referred to page 138 of her bundle, paragraph 5, to show that she did not raise the concerns after receiving the redundancy letter. She stated that page 115 is an email from Silas Tuitek dated 1st February 2023 complaining that funds were used for personal purposes, which was 2 months before the show cause letter. She stated that her husband was like a sta member, used to cover sta on leave and covered Mr. Oumar Tiello when he went on leave. 23. She stated that the whistleblowing was not working well as the 2nd Respondent inltrated it and knew what was reported. She never shared condential information outside the company networks. She conrmed that the disciplinary committee was initially one person, Mr. Anand, but after her protest, he remained and another person was added. The show cause letter never indicated the source of their mandate. 24. She conrmed that she applied for a lower position because her children were in school in Kenya but she was not taken. To date she has not received any payment from the company. 25. The Respondent called its Head of Membership Strategy & Development rst witness, Ms. Gallianne Palayret, as RW1 on 11th March 2026. She adopted her Witness Statement dated 14th March 2025 as her evidence in chief and produced as exhibits D1 to D12, the 12 documents listed in the Respondents' List of Documents dated 5th March 2025. 26. In brief her evidence was that the meeting held on 14th April 2023 was to discuss an email sent to all sta by the Claimant's husband on 13th April 2023. On 28th April 2023, the Claimant was working remotely due to a sick child, and so she went to the claimant’s house with another colleague to serve her with the show cause letter. 27. On cross-examination, she conrmed that she served her internship at UN in Iran and later worked with Mr. Sangaré in 2007 at the UN in Cameroon, Yaoundé. She personally served the Claimant at her residence after being sent by the Director. 28. She conrmed that the meeting on 14th April 2023 was before serving the show cause letter. She conrmed that the email by Sangare was asking for investigations. She stated that the sta handbook has a requirement for establishing facts rst. She stated that the meeting was just meant to verify facts. 29. She conrmed she has never met or spoken to Mr. Sangaré since 2009, in Yaoundé. She stated that Mr. Sangaré had oered to recommend people and give lectures in Côte d'Ivoire. She conrmed that Mr. Sangare was not new to the 2nd Respondent and was known to the senior director. 30. She conrmed that page 138 of the Claimant's documents, was written by Oumar to Sangaré about a meeting with the foreign minister. Page 85 is an email from Oumar to Sangaré asking whether letters to the Government reached the right people. Pages 88-92 are emails between Oumar and Sangaré on the same issues of letters. Pages 96 upwards are WhatsApp texts. 31. She conrmed that Mr. Sangaré recommended Marie for appointment and Page 75 of the claim shows Sangaré was the referee for Marie-Evelyne. However, she claried that Mr. Sangaré was not working there for the 1st respondent but only a stranger recommending people to the organization. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2520/eng@2026-09-24 4

page 4 of 13

32. Regarding the disciplinary panel, she stated that Mr. Varun Anand was Head of Finance for the Respondents' Global Oce. She did not know whether Varun Anand was the only member until the Claimant protested. She did not know who constituted the disciplinary committee or whether the disciplinary process was fair or not. 33. She stated that complaints on nancial mismanagement would not necessarily go to Anand as there was a safe way to report. She conrmed that Anand was from India while Manuela was from Belgium. She did not know whether the alleged nancial oence was from Kenya. 34. She conrmed there was an HR Department in the Region of Africa but it was not for her to explain why no representative from HR or Regional Oce was in the disciplinary panel. She stated that because the Claimant was senior to all ocers, she had to appear before a global panel. She did not know who sat in the Appeal panel to hear claimant’s appeal. 35. She conrmed that the Claimant was the senior most ocer in the African Region but she did not know how the Claimant was recruited in 2021 or 2022. She admitted that there was restructuring in the African region in the year 2020 and contended that in 2023 there was global restructuring in which the claimant was laid o. She did not know how many Kenyans were laid o during the restructuring in 2023, but conrmed that only one senior manager was laid o. 36. She conrmed that the 1st Respondent led a counterclaim and a demand letter was served but she did not know whether it was responded to. 37. She stated that there is a clear procedure for raising complaints called Safe Report but the Claimant shared sensitive information with her husband, including email addresses for sta and issues of nances of the company. She stated that Page 115 is an email to the Claimant from nance sta asking for advice regarding fuel costs emanating from personal missions. She stated that the question from the junior nance sta was required a simple yes or no answer. She contended that the said information, was condential and ought not to have been shared. 38. She stated that pages 135-136, paragraphs 1-4, of the Claimant's supplementary evidence to the Appeal but Investigation was done and the alleged nancial mismanagement was not veried. Therefore, she believed that allegations were malicious and defamatory. 39. On re-examination, she stated that page 37 of the Claimant's bundle is the subject email dated 13th April 2023 while pages 37-40 are email addresses for sta and other people. She claried that all the email addresses which do not end with IPPF are for outsiders. She stated that the letter at page 45 was signed by Mr. Sangaré as a full-time sta at UN. 40. She admitted that Mr. Sangaré was involved in opening the Regional Oce for the 1st Respondent in Nairobi, and in getting local contacts and helping in induction to local procedures. However, she reiterated that Mr. Sangaré was not an employee of the 1st Respondent. 41. RW2 was Ms. Claire Patricia Jerey, former 1st respondent’s Interim Director of People Organization & Culture. She adopted her written Statement dated 6th March 2025 as evidence in chief. She also relied on the 12 documents produced by RW1 as exhibits. 42. In brief her evidence was that the Claimant's disciplinary process was due to breach of condentiality. She stated that the meeting held on 14th April 2023 was to understand how the Claimant knew about an email sent by her husband on the previous day. Finally, she stated that the Claimant was paid all her dues after termination. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2520/eng@2026-09-24 5

page 5 of 13

43. On cross-examination, she stated that Ms. Marie (the 2nd Respondent) had retired from the 1st Respondent 2 weeks before the hearing. She conrmed that she left her position in late 2023 but contended that she was the most appropriate witness for the 1st Respondent. 44. She conrmed that the meeting on 14th April 2023 was held before the show cause letter was given to the claimant. She admitted that such a meeting before show cause was not provided for in the policy and claried that it was not part of the disciplinary process. She conrmed that the meeting was attended by RW1, the Claimant, and herself and she is the one who interviewed the claimant. 45. She stated that the contents of the notice to show cause came from investigation by the Director of Technology. She did not know Mr. Sangaré and she was not aware that he had a long-standing relationship with the organization. She also did not know anything he had done to the 1st respondent but admitted that she only heard that he assisted the company to open an oce in Côte d'Ivoire and wrote letters. 46. She stated that the allegations in the email by Mr. Sangaré were against the 2nd respondent and they were about nancial mismanagement. She stated that the recommendations were for the betterment of the company's nancial aairs, but she contended that there was a policy for raising concerns, which was not followed. She maintained that the claimant’s husband’s email raised issues related to breach of condentiality. 47. She stated that the Regional Director can sit in interview panels even for a driver if the driver is for a particular work. 48. She stated that after seeing the oending email and the recommendations in it, an investigation was conducted. However, she admitted that she had not stated in her statement that investigation was done. 49. She conrmed that Mr. Varun Anand and Ms. Manuelle Hurwitz sat in the disciplinary panel for the Claimant. Mr. Varun Anand was the only person to hear the Claimant's case and after she protested, Ms. Manuelle was added to the panel. 50. She stated that there was an HR Ocer, Tumi Shenje, present during the disciplinary hearing. She thought Tumi Shenje was from South Africa but based in London. Nobody from the Africa Region oce sat in the disciplinary panel or Appeal panel. 51. She stated that there was restructuring in 2020 to get eciency and in 2023 they did a realignment. She could not tell how many Africans lost their jobs, but contended that over 100 roles were aected and 76 employees were laid o. She conrmed that the entire Finance docket was aected. 52. She stated that the Claimant was not paid the redundancy package because she was dismissed for misconduct. The dismissal occurred before the eective date of her redundancy. She maintained that there is a paragraph in the policy manual that claries breach of condentiality as gross misconduct. 53. She stated that the Respondent has a safe secure system and policy for whistleblowing. She contended that the system is based in the UK which is outside the African Region. 54. She stated that she could not answer matters that happened in the disciplinary hearing because she was not present but had read the minutes. She stated further that there was no conict of interest on the part of the panelists because they came outside the African Region for purposes of impartiality. She conrmed that the minutes are not attached to her statement or that of RW1. 55. She stated that the decision to appoint the disciplinary panel was by the Director General with guidance of HR support. The Director General would not be a witness herein. The 2nd Respondent is the best https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2520/eng@2026-09-24 6

page 6 of 13

person to answer matters of nance. The Claimant is the only other person because they were in the Finance docket. The decision to deny the Claimant her redundancy package was not made before commencement of disciplinary process. 56. On re-examination, she stated that the Claimant's services were terminated due to misconduct, not redundancy. Mr. Sangaré was not an employee of IPPF. The Claimant ought not to have shared condential information with Mr. Sangaré. 57. She referred to page 92 of the Respondents' bundle, section 9 of the Sta Handbook, section 9.2, and section 9.3.3 which provides that dismissal shall deny an employee salary in lieu of notice. She stated that the Claimant's dismissal followed due process. 58. She stated that Mr. Varun Anand was the Global Director Finance and Technology. He was on the panel because he had an understanding of the systems and the whistleblowing, and he was also senior enough. She contended that he was not inuenced by anyone and there was no conict of interest. Submissions 59. The Claimant led her Written Submissions dated 8th April 2026. In brief she submitted that the Respondents failed to provide a safe and independent whistleblowing environment; that the disciplinary process accorded to her was unfair; that the disciplinary committee was improperly constituted; and that the failure to call the 2nd Respondent warranted an adverse inference. 60. The Respondents led their Written Submissions dated 20th May 2026. In brief, they submitted that the Claimant breached her employment contract and organizational policies by sharing condential information with an unauthorized third party; that the breach constituted gross misconduct; that due process was followed; and that the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought. 61. The Claimant led Further Submissions dated 22nd May 2026 in reply to the Respondents' submissions whereby she reiterated that the meeting of 14th April 2023 was an improper pre-disciplinary interrogation; that the failure to call the 2nd Respondent warranted adverse inference; and that the disciplinary process was retaliatory. Issues for Determination and Analysis 62. Having considered the pleadings, evidence, witness statements, and submissions, it is a fact that the claimant shared work-related information with her husband. It is also a fact that the husband wrote the email dated 13th April 2023 which led to the summary dismissal of the claimant on 4th July, 2023. The main issues for determination are: a. Whether the sharing of condential work-related information with her husband amounted to gross misconduct and therefore a valid reason warranting summary dismissal. b. Whether the 1st Respondent followed a fair procedure before terminating the Claimant's employment. c. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in her Memorandum of Claim. d. Whether the Respondents are entitled to the reliefs sought in their Counterclaim. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2520/eng@2026-09-24 7

page 7 of 13

e. Who should bear the costs of the suit? Reason for the Dismissal. 63. The Respondents contended that the Claimant breached her condentiality obligations by sharing sensitive company information with her husband, Mr. Nouhoum Sangaré, who was an unauthorized third party. The Claimant denied the allegation, contending that Mr. Sangaré was not a stranger to the organization and that he had many contacts within the organization. She contended that any information she shared with her husband was necessary because the loss of her job aected her family. She further contended that the disclosure constituted protected whistleblowing. 64. I have considered the evidence on record. Clause 1.1 of the Employment Contract dated 12th May 2021 expressly provides that the IPPF Africa Regional Oce Sta Handbook (July 2018) shall form an integral part of the contract. Clause 1.5 requires that the employee shall abide by all rules and regulations contained in the Sta Handbook. 65. The Sta Handbook at Clause 5.1(v) prohibits employees from divulging information acquired or incidental to their employment to outside persons or organizations, whether during or after termination of employment, without the written consent of the Regional Director. Clause 9.2 classies 'misuse or unauthorized disclosure of condential information' as an act of gross misconduct. 66. Policy No. 1.18 on Condentiality and Information Sharing denes Condential Information to include internal business information and all proprietary information not generally known outside of IPPF. Sub-Clause 14 provides that maintenance of condentiality is a contractual obligation and breach of condentiality is a disciplinary oence which could result in dismissal. 67. Policy No. 1.17 on Raising a Concern denes 'Whistleblower' as a person who raises public interest concerns about malpractice using appropriate procedures. The policy requires whistleblowers to use prescribed channels, including the IPPF Safe Report system. 68. The evidence established that the Claimant forwarded multiple email correspondences containing condential information to her husband: 69. a. On 8th April 2023, the Claimant forwarded an email containing talking points for external contacts and partners about the new strategy and realignment of the 1st Respondent (pages 111-112 of the Respondents' bundle). b. On 9th April 2023, the Claimant forwarded an email with correspondence marked "condential" and a password-protected document containing an Audit Report for the Nairobi Oce (pages 113-117 of the Respondents' bundle). c. Still on 9th April 2023, the Claimant forwarded an internal email with the 2nd Respondent's expense reports and London mission travel tickets (pages 119 and 131 of the Respondents' bundle). d. On 12th April 2023, the Claimant forwarded an email containing the names and email addresses of various persons including sta and those outside the organization (pages 139-145 of the Respondents' bundle). There is no evidence of the claimant having a history of sharing condential work-related information with third parties. It happened only at the time when the loss of her employment became obvious. She must have done so under stress, and she only shared the information with her husband as the person https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2520/eng@2026-09-24 8

page 8 of 13

who would provide her with emotional support and advice. I agree with her that losing a job is a matter that aects the spouse and the family at large as can be seen in the Redundancy letter dated 12th April 2023 and the computation of separation dues. 70. However, the information shared included nancial information, strategic plans, personnel data and internal business information not generally known outside the organization. This information fell squarely within the denition of condential information under the Sta Handbook and the Condentiality and Information Sharing Policy. The Claimant admitted during cross-examination that she did not have written authorization from the Regional Director to share the condential information as envisaged by the Sta Handbook and the Condentiality Policy. 71. While appreciating that, an employee undergoing stress moments at work place is entitled to seek advice and emotional support from his/her spouse or other persons who can provide the required emotional support, I must hold that the employee should use general information and avoid divulging condential information that is restricted from third parties. 72. Regarding the documents in French at pages 76-110 of the Claimant's bundle, the Respondents submitted that they are inadmissible as they are in a foreign language not understood by the Court and have not been accompanied by a certied English translation. The Court notes that Article 7(2) of the Constitution provides that the ocial languages of Kenya are English and Kiswahili. Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the language of the High Court and the Court of Appeal shall be English. 73. In Kaburu v Mabellini [2025] KEELC 1424 (KLR), the Court held that untranslated foreign-language documents were of no help to the Court and were as good as blank sheets of paper. In Masindano v Ambetsa [2024] (KLR), the Court held that documents neither in Kiswahili nor English, and unsupported by a translation and certicate of translation, were of no use. 74. Likewise, this Court disregards the untranslated French documents at pages 76-110 of the Claimant's bundle. The Claimant's attempt to show that Mr. Sangaré was within the Respondents' authorized circle through these documents fails for lack of admissible evidence. 75. The Claimant's submission that her disclosure constituted protected whistleblowing is also unpersuasive. There is evidence that the Claimant was aware of Policy No. 1.17 on Raising a Concern, which provides clear procedures for reporting concerns through the Safe Report system and other prescribed channels. She conrmed during cross-examination that she had read and was aware of the contents of the policy. 76. Despite being aware of the proper channels, the Claimant chose to bypass the prescribed procedures and shared condential internal information with her husband, who recklessly disseminated it to current and former sta and third parties. In the circumstances I nd that the Claimant did not use the appropriate procedures for protected whistleblowing, and therefore she breached her employment contract and organizational policies by sharing condential and sensitive company information with her husband without proper authorization. 77. I have already noted above that, Clause 9.2 of the respondent’s Sta Handbook lists 'misuse or unauthorized disclosure of condential information' as an act of gross misconduct. Besides, Sub-Clause 14 of the Condentiality and Information Sharing Policy provides that breach of condentiality is a disciplinary oence which could result in dismissal. The conduct of sharing the condential information to a third party had the potential of exposing the 1st respondent to disrepute as observed by a former employee one Mr. Oumar Tiello in his email dated 14th April 2023. It follows https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2520/eng@2026-09-24 9

page 9 of 13

that the respondent has proved by evidence that the summary dismissal of the claimant was grounded on a valid reason. The Procedure Followed 78. The Claimant contended that the disciplinary process was procedurally defective because: (a) she was interrogated before the formal disciplinary process commenced; (b) the disciplinary panel was improperly constituted and biased; (c) the Appeal panel lacked proper representation; and (d) she was denied a fair hearing. 79. The Respondents contended that they fully complied with due process and met the procedural requirements under the Employment Act and the Sta Handbook. 80. Section 41 of the Employment Act establishes the minimum procedural standards for fair termination. It obligates an employer, before terminating employment on grounds of misconduct, to explain to the employee the reason for which the employer is considering termination and to allow the employee to have another employee or a shop oor union representative of his choice present during this explanation. The employer is also obligated to consider any representations that the employee makes. 81. In Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui [2019] eKLR, the Court of Appeal articulated that procedural fairness requires: (i) an explanation of the grounds of termination in a language understood by the employee; (ii) the reasons for considering termination; (iii) the employee's right to have another employee or union representative present during the explanation; and (iv) hearing and considering any representations made by the employee. 82. The disciplinary process in this case was as follows: a. On 13th April 2023, the Claimant's husband sent an email to the 1st Respondent and all current and former members of sta, alleging misconduct by the 2nd Respondent and calling for investigations. b. On 14th April 2023, RW1, RW2 and the Claimant held a meeting to discuss the email. The Claimant was questioned about the contents of the email and how her husband had obtained condential information. This meeting occurred before any formal disciplinary process had commenced. c. Between 14th April 2023 and 27th April 2023, investigations were conducted. d. On 28th April 2023, the Claimant was issued with a Notice to Show Cause dated 28th April 2023, setting out the allegations of unauthorized disclosure of condential information and conduct capable of bringing the organization into disrepute. e. The Claimant responded on 4th May 2023, denying the allegations. f. On 15th May 2023, the Claimant was issued with a hearing notice inviting her to a disciplinary hearing on 19th May 2023. The Claimant protested the composition of the panel and requested for more time. g. On 18th May 2023, a second hearing notice was issued, rescheduling the hearing to 26th May 2023 and adding Ms. Manuelle Hurwitz to the panel. h. The disciplinary hearing took place on 26th May 2023 and the Claimant was represented by her lawyer. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2520/eng@2026-09-24 10

page 10 of 13

i. On 5th June 2023, the Disciplinary Panel recommended summary dismissal. j. The Claimant appealed on 8th June 2023. k. The Appeal hearing took place on 21st June 2023. l. On 30th June 2023, the Appeal Panel upheld the decision. m. On 4th July 2023, the Claimant's employment was terminated. 83. The Court in Omondi v Technical University of Kenya [2024] KEELRC 2421 (KLR) observed that procedural fairness requires a genuine and impartial hearing and that the employer must not approach the process with a closed mind. The Court emphasized that the investigation process, notice to show cause, and disciplinary hearing must demonstrate consistency and fairness throughout. 84. In the instant case the claimant was unhappy with the pre-disciplinary proceedings, conducted on 14th April 2023 at the respondent’s regional oce, before the formal disciplinary process was initiated. It was her case that such procedure was not provided in the HR Policy. However, the respondent was of a contrary view. 85. I have carefully considered the HR Policy, and especially Chapter 9 which deals with disciplinary procedures. Chapter 9.2 categorizes misconduct into three, namely, acts of minor misconduct, acts of serious misconduct and acts of gross misconduct. The latter category includes misuse or unauthorized disclosure of condential information; and conduct, which brings the image of IPPF and/or IPPFARO into disrepute and/or contravenes the code of conduct IPPF and/or IPPFARO. 86. Under 9.3.1 of the HR Policy, disciplinary procedures for acts of misconduct starts with mediation, verbal warning, rst written warning, nal written warning, notice to show cause, and then dismissal. Chapter 9.3.2 claries that for acts of serious misconduct, only two punishments are possible, that is, severe warning, followed by dismissal if no improvement. Chapter 9.3.3 further claries that in the case of gross misconduct, the only punishment available is summary dismissal without notice or payment in lieu of notice. 87. The instant case involved gross misconduct and the Respondents gave the claimant a chance to informally explain herself before any disciplinary process was initiated. It then investigated the misconduct, issued a Notice to Show Cause, considered the response by the claimant, and accorded her disciplinary hearing. It expanded the panel to two members after protest by the claimant about one panelist and even allowed the claimant to be represented by a lawyer during the hearing. It further gave the claimant right of appeal and heard the appeal before a dierent panel. 88. Having taken into consideration all the above matters, I am satised that the procedure followed was in accordance with a procedure set out under the respondent’s HR Policy and Procedures Manual chapter 9.1 to 9.4. The claimant was given a chance to explain herself both informally and later formally as provided under the HR policy and procedures Manual. 89. Accordingly, I am satised that the pre-disciplinary interrogation on 14th April 2023 was neither wrong nor ill intended since, as highlighted above, Chapter 9.3.1 of the respondent’s HR policy manual provided for pre-disciplinary process before the employee’s supervisor. 90. I also take the view that it is a proper human resource management to conduct such informal process before placing an employee to formal disciplinary process. It adds a human face to the process and it amounts to a dignied treatment. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2520/eng@2026-09-24 11

page 11 of 13

91. As regards the issue of improper composition of the panels which heard the disciplinary case and her appeal, the burden of proof was upon the claimant to show that the composition breached the respondent’s HR policy or rules of natural justice. Having reviewed the evidence on record, I nd that the claimant has not discharged that burden. She did not show that the disciplinary panels were biased against her or that they were conicted. She did not adduce evidence to prove that an ocer from Africa Regional Oce was a mandatory panelist under the HR Policy. 92. In view of the observations and ndings made above, I hold that the dismissal of the Claimant was procedurally fair since it was fashioned along the mandatory provisions of section 41 and 45(2)(c) of the Employment Act, and Chapter 9 of the respondents’ Human Resource Policy Manual. The Reliefs Sought by the Claimant 93. Having found that the summary dismissal of the claimant was grounded on valid reasons and that fair procedure was followed, I must hold that the dismissal was justied and lawful. Accordingly, the claimant is not entitled to compensation for unfair termination under section 49 of the Employment Act. 94. The Claimant also prayed for redundancy package (USD 89,730.24), repatriation package (USD 19,000.00), school costs (USD 92,770.00). The Court notes that the said package was computed by the respondent in the letter dated 12th April 2023 whereby it terminated the Claimant's employment on account of redundancy. The package was based on Chapter 4.6.6 of the Sta Handbook. 95. However, the redundancy did not take eect, as the claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct before the due date. The redundancy process was overtaken by the disciplinary process and dismissal. Therefore, the redundancy package is not payable because the termination was not on account of redundancy but on account of dismissal. An employer is entitled to abandon redundancy process and summarily dismiss an employee who commits gross misconduct before the eective date of the redundancy. 96. As regards repatriation package, Clause 4.3.1.4(ix) of the Sta Handbook provides that an employee whose employment is prematurely terminated on disciplinary grounds shall not be entitled to any repatriation and removals expenses. Since the Claimant was dismissed on disciplinary grounds, she is not entitled to the repatriation package. 97. Regarding school costs, the Claimant has not provided evidence of the particularized school costs claimed. It is trite law that special damages must be specically pleaded and proved. In Herbert Hahn v Amrik Singh [1985] KECA 68 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that special damages must not only be claimed specially but proved strictly. The Claimant has failed to prove the school costs claimed. Besides, just like the repatriation package, the benet of school costs should reasonably be pegged on termination by the employer without any fault on the part of employee. Since the separation was caused by the claimant’s misconduct, the said benets were lost. 98. The claim for payment for unutilized leave days is awarded. The Claimant worked from 14th June 2021 to 4th July 2023, a period of approximately 25 months. She was entitled to 25 leave days per year under clause 5 of her contract equaling 2.08 leave days per month. She prayed for leave equal to $10030.26 but the employer acknowledged leave equal to $7,571.86 in the redundancy notice. In the termination letter dated 4th July 2023, the respondent reduced the leave to 25.5 days equal to $7,213.77. None of the parties demonstrated how the quoted gures were arrived at. Her contract anniversary was 21st June 2023 and she was red on 4th July 2023. Therefore, I award her 26 leave days based on clause 5 of her contract equaling to $8555.22 x 26/30 = $7414.52. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2520/eng@2026-09-24 12

page 12 of 13

99. The above award shall be in addition to any other entitlement computed in the termination letter dated 4th July 2023. However, any relief that is not specically awarded herein is declined, save for pension which remains payable in accordance with the applicable pension scheme rules. Respondents’ Counterclaim 100. The Respondents sought damages for breach of condentiality and violation of privacy, totaling USD 530,679.93. 101. The Court has found that the Claimant breached her condentiality obligations by sharing condential information with her husband. However, the Respondents have not demonstrated any actual loss or damage arising from the breach. There is also no evidence to show that any of the partners and stakeholders discontinued their relationship with the 1st respondent. Therefore, the claim for exemplary damages equaling $199,004.97 is declined. 102. As regards the 2nd Respondents' claim for damages for defamation, she never adduced any evidence before this court to prosecute the claim. Consequently, I nd that the alleged defamation was not established and the prayer for aggravated damages for defamation is also declined. Accordingly, the Counterclaim is dismissed. Conclusion 103. I have found that the summary dismissal of the claimant was fair and lawful and therefore she is not entitled to compensation for unfair termination. I have further found that, pursuant to the summary dismissal before the eective date of the intended redundancy, she lost her right to the redundancy package earlier computed by the employer. She is however, entitled to unutilized leave and the other dues computed in the termination letter dated 4th July 2023 including pension. Finally, I have found no merits in the respondents’ counterclaim and declined the reliefs sought thereby. Consequently, I enter judgment for the Claimant as follows: a. The 1st respondent to pay the claimant $7,414.52 being compensation for the unutilized Leave days plus interest at court rate from the date of ling the suit. b. The respondents’ counterclaim is dismissed for lack of merits. c. The claimant is awarded costs of the suit and the counterclaim. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. ONESMUS MAKAU JUDGE Appearance: Ouma & Sebayiga for Claimant Kariuki for Lempaa for Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2520/eng@2026-09-24 13

page 13 of 13