(NAIROBI, KENYA) – A Kenyan firm has failed in its attempt to stop the auction of office furniture and vehicles over a KES 5.5 million ($846) compensation claim by a former employee.
The Labour Relations Court had awarded the former employee, Fidelis Wambui, KES 4.4 million ($677) after finding that Hallmark Marketing discriminated against her on account of pregnancy and constructively dismissed her in 2021. The award, with interest, costs and execution charges, has grown to KES 5.5 million ($846).
Ms Wambui, through Mbeki Auctioneers, proclaimed the company’s office furniture, equipment and four motor vehicles to recover the court award.
Hallmark Advertising & Marketing went to court to stop the attachment. It argued that it was not the company sued by Ms Wambui and that the proclaimed assets belonged to other parties. The company said the office furniture was leased from Reynard Africa, two vehicles were under bank financing and another belonged to its landlord.
In a ruling delivered on 30th October 2026, Justice Njagi Marete dismissed the objection. The judge found that the applicant had failed to show it was separate from the judgment debtor or that it had an independent legal interest in the attached property.
The judge said the furniture lessor, banks and registered vehicle owners could still lodge their own objections if they could prove an interest in the assets.
“The objector has therefore not shown a legal or equitable interest, in its own right, in any item of the attached property. A person who says that attached goods belong to someone else, and claims no interest of its own, is not an objector,” Justice Marete said.
Hostility and castigation
The dispute arose from Ms Wambui’s employment at Hallmark Marketing, where she joined in March 2016 as a customer service officer earning a basic monthly salary of KES 50,000 ($7.69).
She told the court that she had no appointment letter, received no itemised payslips and was not paid a house allowance. The company argued that her engagement depended on client contracts and was intermittent.
In March 2021, Ms Wambui developed pregnancy related complications and was advised to take bed rest. On 13th April, she requested an additional 28 days of medically recommended rest.
She told the court the request was met with hostility and castigation, which she reported to the company’s chief executive, Philip Muchimuti.
Two days later, on 15th April, the company placed her on indefinite unpaid leave, citing financial difficulties caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Four days later, before the leave was due to begin, she was removed from all 21 work related WhatsApp groups and her work email was blocked.
Ms Wambui argued that the measures went beyond changes to her work arrangements and effectively pushed her out of employment because of her pregnancy. She sued the company for constructive dismissal and pregnancy discrimination, seeking compensation and declarations that her employment and constitutional rights had been violated.
Performance problems
Hallmark denied discriminating against her. It said the unpaid leave was part of a wider restructuring caused by financial difficulties after the Covid-19 pandemic.
The company said it operated as an agency whose employees’ engagements depended on contracts with principal clients. Its operations had been affected by the termination of a contract with Githunguri Dairy Farmers Co-operative Society.
It also disputed Ms Wambui’s account. It alleged that she was not a diligent employee, had performance problems, had received warning letters and had presented questionable medical documents to support her request for extended sick leave.
Justice Marete found that the employer had failed to produce written contracts to support its claim that Ms Wambui worked on fixed term arrangements.
Under the Employment Act, an employer that fails to produce written employment particulars bears the burden of proving the disputed terms. The judge said her regular salary payments over five years pointed to continuous employment.
The judge also found the timing of the unpaid leave letter and her later exclusion from the company’s communication platforms significant.
Hallmark had not produced redundancy notices, meeting minutes or staff communications to show that it had carried out a wider restructuring.
“The chronology of events is compelling. This sequence, occurring within days and while the Petitioner was vulnerable due to pregnancy complications, signifies a reaction to her pregnancy and not a pre-planned restructuring due to Covid-19.”
Section 5 of the Employment Act prohibits discrimination on grounds including pregnancy, while Section 46 provides that pregnancy or a reason connected with it is not a fair reason for dismissal.
“Removing an employee from all work platforms while on authorised sick leave is a repudiatory breach of the employment contract,” the court said, adding that it made the working relationship “intolerable and unbearable”.
Tragic loss
The court also noted that Ms Wambui had faced serious health challenges and lost her child, circumstances the judge considered in assessing compensation.
In its January 2026 judgment, the court declared that she had been constructively and unfairly dismissed and that her rights under the Constitution and Employment Act had been violated.
“The respondent’s actions, viewed objectively, were inextricably linked to the Petitioner’s pregnancy and her need for medical accommodation. The purported reason of Covid-19 restructuring appears to be a pretext,” the court said.
Ms Wambui was awarded KES 50,000 ($7.69) in lieu of notice, KES 457,500 ($70.38) in unpaid house allowance, KES 175,000 ($26.92) for accrued leave, KES 143,750 ($22.12) in service pay and KES 600,000 ($92.31) for unfair termination.
The judge further awarded her KES 3 million ($461.54) for violation of her constitutional rights, bringing the total compensation to KES 4.4 million ($677), before interest and costs.
The execution dispute followed the 30th July 2026 issuance of a warrant of attachment for KES 5.5 million ($846), covering the decree, interest, taxed costs and execution charges.
In challenging the attachment, Hallmark Advertising & Marketing maintained that it was not the entity sued by Ms Wambui and that the assets proclaimed by the auctioneer were not its property.
Ms Wambui argued that Hallmark Marketing and Hallmark Advertising & Marketing referred to the same employer. She cited shared addresses, correspondence, salary payments and a common director. She also pointed out that the company had defended the original petition and pursued appeal steps without challenging the name.
Justice Marete said the question of formally correcting the judgment debtor’s name required a separate application and made no order on that request. The ruling therefore did not formally declare the two companies to be one legal entity.
The judge nevertheless cleared the way for enforcement of the existing decree, stating: “The decree holder be and is hereby at liberty to proceed with execution of the decree in accordance with the law.”