How CEO’s WhatsApp Messages Cost Company KSh 1.32 Million to a Former Employee

The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi has made a landmark ruling that the dissemination of sexually suggestive digital content by a superior in the workplace to a junior employee constitutes sexual harassment.

The ruling was made on September 19, 2025, in the RAO vs. O L & another (Cause E744 of 2023).

The actions of the first respondent, who was the Chief Executive Officer of Pawa IT Solutions Limited, constituted a breach of the statutory protections afforded by Kenyan and global labour laws.

The ruling was made by the Presiding Judge, Stella Rutto, who ruled that the petitioner proved her case on the balance of probabilities and found that the actions of her superior in the workplace constituted a hostile work environment for which she resigned.

The actions of the first respondent “breached section 6(1) of the Employment Act and ILO Convention No. 190.”

Harassment Claims and Breakdown of Employment Relationship

The claimant has worked as a Finance and Admin Associate since September 6, 2021.

She reported directly to the first respondent.

Defendant told the court that she experienced a decline in her professional relationship with her supervisor after she reported inappropriate incidents.

She claimed that she received a WhatsApp link containing suggestive content from her supervisor in September 2022.

The claimant claimed that she experienced a non-consensual kiss during a work-related engagement in January 2023.

This incident was followed by another severe incident after a client meeting. She then underwent medical attention and counseling.

In her claim, she stated that “her resignation was not voluntary but amounted to constructive dismissal,” citing sexual harassment, assault, and dissatisfaction with how her complaint was handled.

She claimed that she found the work environment hostile and toxic and therefore had no other option but to resign.

Employer Response and Internal Investigation

The respondents denied all the accusations leveled against them and argued that the claimant had actually resigned on her own accord and without prior notice.

Employer told the court that upon receipt of the claimant’s complaint, the company swiftly responded to the situation by putting the claimant on paid leave and hiring an independent investigator.

The employer claimed that “the recall of the claimant from leave fell within the employer’s prerogative” and that the 30 percent salary reduction was part of a larger organizational response to many employees.

The court found these actions to be insufficient to deal with the severity of the accusations leveled and their impact on the claimant.

Judge noted that, “workplace harassment perpetrated by a superior alters the terms and conditions of employment.”

Also Read: High Court Orders School to Readmit Student Expelled Over Vape

Legal Threshold for Constructive Dismissal Met

Furthermore, in arriving at their decision, the court drew on legal definitions of what constitutes constructive dismissal, stating that it is present when “an employer’s creation of working conditions leaves the employee almost no option but to quit.”

Moreover, the judgment cited international legal definitions of violence and harassment as constituting “a range of unacceptable behaviours, likely to result in physical, psychological, sexual or economic harm.”

The judgment was also based on digital evidence presented by the claimant, which was deemed admissible by the court, stating that the claimant had produced the evidence appropriately, specifically WhatsApp messages and multimedia content.

Also Read: Court Hands 30-Year Sentence to Cop Who Fatally Shot Colleague

Damages Awarded and Counterclaim Dismissed

Having found in favour of the claimant, the court awarded one month’s salary instead of notice amounting to Ksh 120,000, alongside compensatory damages equivalent to ten months’ gross salary totaling Ksh 1,200,000.

“The total award is Ksh 1,320,000.00,” the court ordered, adding that interest would accrue “at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full.”

The respondents’ counterclaim was dismissed entirely, with the court directing that they bear the costs of both the claim and the counterclaim.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for instant news updates