Court upholds sacking of EABL staff caught in bribery saga

Mr Wachira had sued the giant regional brewer in 2018 seeking Sh3.45 million as compensation for unfair termination, plus interest, costs, and a certificate of service. He argued that the disciplinary process was flawed and the charges were vague.

The court agreed that several accusations in the notice to show cause were “vague, ambiguous, lacked particulars, and were indeed embarrassing to the Claimant for lack of clarity.” It found that he could not reasonably answer most of them.

But on two key counts, receiving and conveying a bribe, and breaching the Code of Business Conduct, the court found the employer had a valid reason to act.

"The court finds that the respondent had a valid reason to dismiss the claimant from employment and the admissions made by the claimant had absolved the respondent from the apparent flaws in the procedure it had followed in disciplining the claimant with regard to counts 2 and 6 in the notice to show cause," said the court.

Wachira was first employed in 2006 on a fixed-term contract before being confirmed on permanent and pensionable terms in 2010 as a Customer Relations Representative. At the time of his dismissal in March 2018, he earned about Sh288,235 a month.

His role included implementing trade, marketing, and distribution strategy and overseeing field resources.

Trouble began in March 2018 when he was summoned to the company’s Ruaraka head office and questioned over money he had delivered to a finance department officer named Francis Mungai.

Fraudulent scheme

He later received a notice to show cause, accusing him of extorting bribes, conveying a bribe, coaching prospective distributors, setting up a fraudulent scheme, breaching the code of conduct, and conspiracy to commit a felony.

In court, he admitted receiving Sh300,000 from a person named Moses linked to one of the company's beer distributors, and delivering it to a senior officer at the finance department.

He said that this happened at the social club. He said he did not know the purpose of the money and believed it was a package between friends.

Wachira testified that the officer rejected the cash, called it “a fake,” and returned it, after which he refunded the person linked to the distributor.

However, under cross-examination, he conceded that he never reported the incident to his manager or superiors.

The court found this omission telling. “The court is satisfied that the Claimant had admitted having conveyed money to his superior, contrary to the Respondent’s Code of Business Conduct,” the judge held.

It rejected his defence that he did not know the money was a bribe.

“The court is not satisfied with the explanation by the Claimant that he did not know that the Sh300,000 he had conveyed was indeed a bribe,” the ruling stated.

The court pointed to the manner in which the money changed hands.

“The conduct by the Claimant of calling the officer (Mungai) to his car and not handing over the money at the office was suspicious and is indicative of the state of mind of the Claimant at the time,” the court found.

It added: “The Claimant was aware that he was involved in misconduct.”

While faulting the company for procedural lapses in the disciplinary process, including failure to provide detailed particulars and to produce an investigation report, the court said the admissions cured those defects.

“Despite the flaws in the procedure followed by the Respondent, given the admissions made by the Claimant, the Respondent had proved on a balance of probability that the Claimant was guilty of counts 2 and 6,” the judge ruled.

Those counts related specifically to conveying a bribe and breaching the anti-corruption code.

The court concluded that the employer had a valid reason to dismiss him and that the suit lacked merit.

It dismissed the case in its entirety, bringing to a close the eight-year dispute over the brewer’s anti-bribery standards and workplace discipline.

[email protected]