A former nanny has taken her legal battle to the Court of Appeal after an Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed her case against a prominent estranged couple. The woman had filed a lawsuit seeking over Sh28 million in damages, citing claims of sexual harassment, breach of confidentiality, and invasion of privacy.
The woman had been employed by a well-known travel agency’s directors, a married couple whose relationship was reportedly troubled long before she began working for them. Her claims stemmed from an incident in which a video recording of an altercation between her and the wife was allegedly leaked by the husband. The footage gained significant attention on social media, sparking discussions about the couple’s marriage and leading to accusations against the nanny, branding her a homewrecker. She maintained that she was being unfairly blamed for their marital issues.
In her lawsuit, she sought Sh7 million in damages for sexual harassment allegedly perpetrated by the wife, Sh7 million for breach of confidentiality by the husband’s release of the CCTV footage, and Sh14 million for breach of privacy and dignity by both individuals. However, the judge dismissed her case, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter due to the termination of her employment contract on October 15, 2024. Additionally, she had previously agreed to an out-of-court settlement with the couple, which the judge considered binding.
The nanny, however, contended that she had been coerced into accepting the settlement under pressure from law enforcement authorities whom she believed had been influenced by the couple. Despite this claim, the judge maintained that since her contract of service was with the travel agency—a limited company—the actions of the two directors, as individuals, were outside the purview of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. The ruling emphasized that such a dispute should have been filed in a Magistrate’s Court instead.
Despite this, the judge also acknowledged that the Employment and Labour Relations Court has original and unlimited jurisdiction over all employment-related disputes, including those typically handled by a Magistrate’s Court. This raised questions about whether the case should have been transferred rather than struck out entirely. Legal representatives for the nanny argued that striking out a case should always be a last resort and expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling. They have since filed a notice of appeal, challenging the decision and seeking a fresh hearing before a different judicial body.
The nanny remains steadfast in her claims, asserting that her rights were violated and that the legal process should not have been prematurely shut down. With the appeal now in motion, the matter is set to be revisited at a higher court, where she hopes to obtain justice and recognition for the alleged harm she suffered.
