A court ruling in 2024 clarified what Kenyan law states on workplace relationships, drawing a clear line between private romance and workplace misconduct.
In the MNM v G4S Kenya Limited case, the Employment and Labor Relations Court examined whether an employer can discipline or dismiss staff for consensual relationships at work and how far workplace policies may extend.
“Romantic relationships at the workplace must be left to run their own natural course. It is a harebrained law or policy, that would seek to outlaw the affairs of the heart. Employers must leave the Bill and Melinda Gates within their undertakings to grow, and to find themselves in each other, while they continue to be productive to the business,” read part of the ruling.
According to the ruling, workplace relationships are not illegal in Kenya. The 2010 Constitution protects employees’ right to privacy and dignity, meaning adults are free to engage in romantic relationships, even at work
Court Clarifies on Workplace Relationship
In the case of a G4S Kenya Limited employee, a senior manager was dismissed after engaging in a relationship with a junior employee, which the employer argued that it was sexual harassment and abuse of office.
Also Read: Judiciary Moves to Destroy Old Court Records in 2 Cities
The Employment and Labour Relations Court found that the relationship was mutual and consensual, with no evidence of coercion, pressure, or unwelcome conduct.
Justice J. Rika emphasized that not every workplace relationship amounts to sexual harassment, noting that romantic relationships are a natural occurrence wherever people work together.
The ruling further declared that employer policies that completely ban workplace relationships are unconstitutional, as they infringe on employees’ rights to privacy and dignity.
According to the ruling, under Kenyan law, employers cannot punish employees for being in a relationship unless there is clear evidence of wrongdoing beyond the relationship itself.
The court held that consensual romantic relationships between employees are not unlawful and cannot, on their own, justify dismissal.
When Workplace Relationships Become a Legal Problem
While the court protected consensual relationships, it also acknowledged that workplace romance can raise legitimate concerns for employers.
The law, particularly under the Employment Act, prohibits sexual harassment, which includes situations where a superior uses their position to demand sexual favours in exchange for workplace benefits or creates an environment of unwelcome sexual conduct.
In the case, the employer argued that the relationship constituted harassment in which states that sexual harassment occurs when a superior, uses his or her power, to persuade a junior staff into granting sexual favours, in return for a work-related favour.
According to the claimant, the manager influenced the transfer of the junior employee to a better-paying role.
However, the court found no evidence linking the relationship to any workplace favor or coercion and noted that the employee had been selected for the role on merit.
The court made a key distinction:
- A consensual relationship is lawful
- A relationship involving coercion, pressure, or abuse of authority can amount to misconduct
Employers are therefore allowed to regulate issues such as conflict of interest, favourism, and abuse of power, but not the private relationships themselves.
Also Read: High Court Blocks Withdrawal of Petition Challenging Ruto Health Data Deal with US
Limits of Employer Power and Workplace Policies
The employer’s sexual harassment policy had prohibited romantic relationships between supervisors and subordinates and imposed strict disclosure requirements.
The court found such provisions to be an overreach, stating that they go beyond preventing harassment and instead attempt to control employees’ private lives.
The judgment emphasized that workplace policies must align with the Constitution and cannot override fundamental rights.
It also underscored that if an employer suspects wrongdoing, the proper approach is to investigate and discipline specific misconduct, such as conflict of interest or unfair advantage, rather than rely on blanket bans.
As a result, the court declared the termination unfair and awarded the employee compensation of 12 months’ salary, totaling Ksh 3,244,800, a certificate of service, and all costs to the claimant under the Employment Act.
