The Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) in Nairobi has ruled that employers are within their rights to inspect company-issued laptops, even when the search uncovers an employee’s personal information, provided there is a genuine work-related reason for doing so.
Delivering judgment on July 21, Justice Makau held that an employee cannot automatically claim a breach of privacy when an employer checks a work computer to confirm it is being used properly for official duties. The case arose from a dispute involving a former hotel employee who was dismissed after an internal review of her official email account and events calendar.
The inspection began after a double-booking incident raised concerns about how the employee was managing her work communications. A subsequent review found that she had not been regularly checking or responding to official emails, had issued incorrect Banquet Event Orders, and had mishandled updates to the events calendar. Investigators also discovered that she had linked a personal email account to the company laptop, while her official work email had separately been set up on her personal phone.
Despite this overlap between personal and official use, the court found that it did not shield her from scrutiny once legitimate performance concerns had been raised. The judgment held that workplace equipment, including laptops and email systems, remains the property of the employer regardless of how an employee chooses to use it. Employees who mix personal business with company devices, the court said, cannot later claim their privacy was violated when a lawful inspection is carried out.
Having found the inspection lawful, reasonable and proportionate, the court dismissed the privacy violation claims in their entirety.
However, the ruling was not entirely in the employer’s favour. The court separately found that the employee’s dismissal had not followed fair procedure, entitling her to compensation. Citing Section 49 of the Employment Act and a 60-day notice clause in her contract, the court awarded two months’ salary in lieu of notice. Based on her monthly pay of Ksh127,650, this amounted to Ksh255,300.
In arriving at this figure, the judge weighed her more than five years of service against her own contribution to the circumstances that led to her exit through misconduct. The court declined to award her salary for the remainder of her contract term, as she had sought.
The ruling now stands as an important reference point for Kenyan workplaces on where employee privacy ends and an employer’s right to monitor its own equipment begins.
