Why High Court judge threw out nanny’s Sh28 million suit against Kabus
By Sinda MatikoSimon Kabu and Sarah Njoki’s former nanny has appealed to the Court of Appeal after an Employment and Labour Relations court threw out her case of sexual harassment, right to dignity, and invasion of privacy against the estranged married businessmen.
The woman had sued the separated couple -directors at Bonfire Adventures travel agency – for more than Sh28 million, claiming her rights were violated by the estranged couple while working as their employee.
In December 2024, the woman was thrust into the spotlight after Simon allegedly leaked video footage of an altercation between her and Sarah.
The footage sparked a trending topic on social media about the marital woes of the two Bonfire Adventure directors, with the woman claiming it also led to her being bastardized on social media and branded a husband snatcher.
She says Simon and Sarah’s marriage was on the rocks long before she was hired and was only being used by the couple as a scapegoat for their marital woes.
JK (the woman) in her suit at the Employment and Labour Relation, Division of the High Court was seeking Sh7 million for sexual harassment by Sarah, Sh7 million for breach of confidentiality by Simon’s release of the CCTV footage, and Sh14 million for breach of privacy and dignity by both Simon and Sarah.
Justice Manani noted that his decision stemmed from the fact that JK had filed the suit when her contract of service was terminated on October 15, 2024, after she had agreed to an out-of-court settlement with the Kabus, and as such, the court had no jurisdiction over the matter as there was no subsisting employment relationship between the parties. The nanny claims she was coerced into entering the out-of-court settlement deal by the police she believes had been compromised by the Kabus.
Justice Manani also ruled that since the contract of service was between JK and Bonfire Adventures, a limited company (1st respondent), the actions of Simon (2nd respondent) and Sarah (3rd respondent), who were not her employers, could not be the subject of litigation before the Employment and Labour Relations Court. Instead, the matter should have been filed at Magistrate Court.
The Judge, however, also noted that under the ELRC Act, it gives his court original and unlimited jurisdiction over all employment and labor disputes, including those that fall within the jurisdiction of a Magistrate’s Court.
“The judge in his ruling agrees that the ELRC, which is an extension of the High Court, has jurisdiction over all employment and labor disputes. Had he considered this, he would have transferred the matter to the Magistrate Court instead of striking it out. In law, striking out a case should be a last resort. This is one of the reasons why we are dissatisfied with his decision. We have already filed a notice of appeal against the entire decision at the Court of Appeal. JK lawyer Mr. Arunda said.