Court Issues Directive on Sacking of Safaricom Boss

The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi has upheld Safaricom PLC’s decision to dismiss former senior manager Brian Njoroge Wamatu over allegations that he accessed and shared confidential company information without permission.

In a judgment delivered on July 30, 2026, Justice Benard Manani dismissed Wamatu’s case, ruling that Safaricom had a valid reason to terminate his employment and had followed a fair disciplinary process.

Wamatu sued Safaricom after his employment was terminated in June 2019, arguing that the dismissal was unlawful and that he had not been given a fair chance to defend himself.

He joined Safaricom as a Value-Added Services (VAS) Product Manager in November 2008 and later rose to Head of Regional Expansion.

According to court documents, Wamatu was arrested on June 7, 2019, and later taken to court over allegations of computer fraud and demanding Ksh 300 million through threats. The charge was later changed to conspiracy to commit a felony.

Wamatu blamed Safaricom for his arrest, alleging that the company had used him as a scapegoat over the loss of data.

Safaricom denied the claims, saying Wamatu had worked with other employees to access, collect, share and sell sensitive customer data without permission.

The company also accused him of accessing information about its data-loss protection systems and the salaries and compensation of senior managers without authorisation.

Court Backs Safaricom’s Decision

Justice Manani said an employer does not have to prove an employee’s misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before terminating their employment.

The court said that under Section 43(2) of the Employment Act, an employer need only show that it genuinely believed the reasons for termination existed when the decision was made.

Also Read: Safaricom Launches Campaign Rewarding Customers With More Data, Lower M-PESA Charges

In Wamatu’s case, the court found that Safaricom relied on an internal investigation report prepared in June 2019.

The report stated that Wamatu had worked with two other employees, Billy Kinuthia and Charles Kimani, to steal company information for sale to third parties.

Investigators reached this conclusion after examining data from the mobile phones of the three employees. They found conversations about the purchase of Safaricom data, as well as information about the pay and sign-on bonus of senior employees.

The court found that the report gave Safaricom enough information to genuinely believe that Wamatu had committed the alleged misconduct.

“The Respondent had a justifiable ground to consider terminating the Claimant’s contract,” the judge ruled.

Court Rejects Fair Hearing Claim

Wamatu also argued that Safaricom did not give him enough time to respond to the allegations and went ahead with a disciplinary hearing while he was required to appear before the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).

The court found that Safaricom had issued him with a show-cause letter on June 14, 2019, which he responded to.

The company later invited him to a disciplinary hearing scheduled for June 21, 2019, at 4:00 PM.

Wamatu asked for the hearing to be postponed to June 25, saying he was required to report to the DCI on June 21 following a court order.

Also Read: Safaricom Announces Key Board Changes Following AGM

Safaricom rejected the request and said the hearing would proceed at 4:00 PM.

The court found that Wamatu’s meeting with the DCI had ended at around noon, and not 3:45 pm as he had claimed.

A Safaricom investigating officer told the court that the meeting started at about 11:30 am and ended around noon.

The court therefore found that Wamatu had enough time to attend the disciplinary hearing but failed to do so.

“The Claimant had no plausible explanation to account for his failure to turn up for the disciplinary hearing at 4.00 PM on 21st June 2019,” the judge said.

The court also found that Safaricom had informed Wamatu by email at 10:01 am that his request to postpone the hearing had been rejected.

Justice Manani therefore ruled that Wamatu had been given a fair disciplinary process.

Defamation Claim Rejected

Wamatu also sought damages for defamation, arguing that the events surrounding his arrest and prosecution damaged his reputation by portraying him as a criminal and an unethical person.

The court rejected the claim on two grounds.

First, Justice Manani found that the defamation claim had been filed outside the one-year time limit under Section 20 of the Defamation Act.

The alleged defamatory events happened in June 2019, while Wamatu filed his case seeking damages in June 2022.

The court also found that Wamatu had failed to prove that he had been defamed. According to the judgment, he did not provide independent witnesses to show that the alleged publication had damaged how other people viewed him.

The court further rejected his claim for the value of shares allocated to him under Safaricom’s Employee Share Ownership Plan (ESOP), saying he had not provided enough evidence to support it.

Court Dismisses Suit

The court found that Safaricom had a valid reason to terminate Wamatu’s employment and had followed a fair disciplinary process.

Justice Manani therefore dismissed the suit for lack of merit and rejected Wamatu’s defamation and ESOP claims.

The judge ordered Safaricom and Wamatu to each meet their own legal costs.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for instant news updates.

A Safaricom retail shop and customer care desk in Kenya. PHOTO/ Safaricom FB