Global cargo logistics firm DP World has secured a court victory in a Sh520 million claim by a former manager based in Nairobi who alleged she was dismissed irregularly via a phone call.
Purity Irene sued the global port operator, DHL Dubai and two Dubai-based managers, alleging she was unlawfully sacked on August 28, 2024 through a phone call.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court found that Ms Irene’s contract had expired in August 2023 and had not been extended at the time of her alleged termination in August 2024.
The court found she failed to prove any ongoing employment relationship between her and the company.
She had been employed by DP World, a logistics, port management, trade flow and supply chain company based in the United Arab Emirates, as a regional manager of Dubuy.com.
She claimed the dismissal was abrupt, lacked notice, and violated her rights to fair labour practices, privacy and fair administrative action, arguing that her emails were blocked in the wake of the sacking.
The former DP World employee also alleged breach of privacy, accusing the respondents of unlawfully accessing and sharing her shipment data, and sought $4,038,604 (Sh520 million) in compensation.
Court finding
But the court found no evidence of an ongoing employment relationship beyond the one-year fixed-term contract.
“In short, the petitioner has failed to establish that she had any employment relationship with the first respondent beyond August 31, 2023, when her one-year fixed-term contract expired by effluxion of time,” the court ruled.
Ms Irene argued that her contract had been verbally extended and that she continued working until the alleged termination in 2024.
The global port operator further accused Ms Irene of unlawfully using company systems for her own business after her access was inadvertently left active, prompting its closure.
In her case, the petitioner relied on emails, bank transfers and continued access to a company email account to support her claim of continued employment.
However, the court dismissed the evidence as insufficient and unreliable, noting key documents were unauthenticated.
“These emails have no probative value since they are not accompanied by certificates to authenticate electronic evidence, bear no visible dates and do not constitute evidence that the petitioner was employed by the first respondent beyond August 31, 2023,” the court held.
Privacy claim
The court also found that the financial transfers cited by Ms Irene did not show they were salary payments or linked to employment.
She had claimed that during the termination phone call, one of the managers accessed and recited sensitive shipment data linked to her, arguing this amounted to a breach of privacy.
But the court rejected the claim, finding it inconsistent with her own case of acting as an employee at the time.
“It is either the petitioner was at the material time an employee of the first respondent… or was conducting shipment in her personal capacity,” the court said.
“This allegation of violation of her rights to privacy is hollow, is not credible.”
The case also collapsed on jurisdictional grounds, with the court ruling it had no authority over the foreign respondents.
The court noted that DP World and the two managers were based in the United Arab Emirates and had no registered presence in Kenya.
The petitioner had sent them court papers through email without first seeking court approval to serve parties outside the country.
“The respondents must be invited to submit to the authority of the court in terms of the rules,” the court said.
It added that failure to follow procedure meant the court’s jurisdiction “was not invoked”.
Case collapse
The claim against DHL Dubai was also struck out after the court found no employment relationship between the parties.
The judge said the dispute against the courier firm fell outside the mandate of the labour court and should have been pursued through the Data Commissioner.
“The court lacks jurisdiction to determine any alleged dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent [DHL],” he ruled.
The entire petition was struck out for lack of jurisdiction and failure to prove the case.
The court further held that even if jurisdiction had been established, the claim would still have failed on merit.
