The Employment and Labour Relations Court has dismissed a former Safaricom employee’s claim for about Sh35 million after ruling that the telecommunications company had valid grounds to dismiss her over alleged misuse of its medical insurance scheme.
The claimant, Lynette Oduor, had worked at Safaricom for approximately 16 years, rising from customer care representative to Quality Analyst. She was earning a gross monthly salary of Sh203,632 when the company terminated her employment on September 23, 2021.
The dispute arose from a visit to a Mater Hospital clinic in Buruburu on June 29, 2021. Safaricom alleged that Oduor used her employee medical insurance card to obtain treatment for her cousin, who was not eligible for cover under the company’s medical scheme.
Oduor denied the allegation. She maintained that she had sought treatment for abdominal pain and that her cousin had accompanied her. She also claimed that hospital staff misplaced her medical card and gave her an ultrasound report belonging to another patient.
Minet Insurance Brokers, which administered Safaricom’s employee medical scheme, investigated the incident. The investigation included reviewing CCTV footage, interviewing hospital staff and Oduor, and examining medical claim forms.
The court accepted the investigation findings and cited inconsistencies in Oduor’s account and discrepancies in the documents presented. It also noted that she had not called her cousin or the doctor she said had treated her to corroborate her explanation.
Oduor argued that Safaricom had relied on Minet’s report without conducting a separate investigation. The court found that the investigation was sufficient because the insurer had been assigned responsibility for administering the medical scheme.
The court also considered the disciplinary process followed by Safaricom. The company said it issued Oduor with an investigation report and a show-cause letter, invited her to two disciplinary hearings and informed her of her right to appeal.
The judge concluded that Safaricom had established valid reasons for the dismissal and followed a fair procedure. The court rejected her claims of unfair termination and discrimination, finding insufficient evidence to establish that she had been treated differently from comparable employees.
Her claim included compensation, alleged lost earnings up to retirement, service pay, pension-related benefits and other payments. The court rejected the claim and ordered that it be dismissed with costs.
The decision highlights the importance of documented investigations, clear employee benefit rules and fair disciplinary procedures in employment disputes. It also demonstrates that courts assess the evidence and process behind a dismissal rather than treating long service or a previously clean disciplinary record as automatic protection against termination.
