Betika to pay ex-boss full dues despite theft charge

Justice Jacob Gakeri declined to endorse the application by Shop & Deliver Ltd, popularly known as Betika, to withhold two-thirds of Fred Gitonga’s terminal dues after he was summarily fired last August.



The former employer argued that it is not sure whether it will recover the KSh11 million allegedly stolen by the former head of technology at the firm.



But the Employment and Labour Court judge said although Gitonga has a pending criminal case, he is still presumed innocent.







“For the above-stated reasons, it is the finding of the court that the applicant’s unilateral act of withholding the respondent’s terminal dues on the premise that the respondent had a pending criminal case was unjustified and unlawful,” the judge said.



The judge said the withholding of salary or wages is only sanctioned in specifically defined instances such as where the employee has taken an advance or is on suspension, surcharge, or other legitimate cause.



“Needless to emphasise, the respondent remains a suspect or accused person and is entitled to all the constitutional rights of an accused person, including the presumption of innocence and fair trial before an impartial court,” the judge added.



KSh1.9m salary



The court heard that Gitonga was appointed the head of technology at the betting firm in December 2017 and confirmed six months later. He was earning KSh1.9 million salary a month.



It is alleged that Gitonga stole KSh11 million from the firm between 13 January and 3 February last year being a servant of Betika. He was arrested and charged and the court freed him a KSh200,000 cash bail.



The employer said it conducted internal investigations and took disciplinary action against Mr Gitonga before terminating his employment for gross misconduct.



And whereas the company is obligated to pay him KSh12.5 million as terminal dues, the firm decided to withhold KSh8.3 million, pending the conclusion of the criminal case.



The company then moved to court seeking the endorsement of the decision, arguing that it is apprehensive that it may not recover the money stolen and believes it would be best to withhold part of Gitonga’s terminal dues.



The firm submitted that it had the right to withhold or deduct wages under Section 19 of the Employment Act, 2007.



Gitonga opposed the case, saying he had the right to fair trial pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of the Constitution.



COURTESY