Employee sues company over transfer to Nairobi months before retirement

Mr Mulogosi had completed KPC’s pre-retirement training and said he had prepared his home and social life in Eldoret for life after formal employment. He sought judicial intervention in a case that raised a workplace question for staff nearing retirement.

The Employment and Labour Relations Court has quashed his transfer from Pump Station 27 in Eldoret to Pump Station 10 in Nairobi.

Mr Mulogosi also accused KPC of disabling his system access, operational privileges and work credentials despite interim court orders preserving existing position, saying the move prevented him from performing his duties and caused psychological distress.

Justice Maureen Onyango found that the KPC had violated his constitutional rights and that the transfer was made in bad faith, and intended to punish him without a hearing.

The dispute followed a transfer letter dated June 24, 2025. Mr Mulogosi appealed six days later, asking the company to reconsider the move. His written appeals recorded his objections and personal circumstances.

He said he had served KPC for more than three decades and was in the final phase of his professional life. He said that since he was hired in 1993, he had been stationed in Eldoret, where he also set up a family residence.

His plans were rooted in Eldoret. He said he had established a home and community relationships that would support his post-retirement life.

Mr Mulogosi told the court that he cared for his elderly mother, whose impaired mobility required monthly medical check-ups.

He also served as a pastor and said his church role and social connections were important to his wellbeing post-retirement.

“A sudden transfer at this delicate stage would inevitably disrupt this process, causing both personal and social disorientation,” he argued in his appeal letter.

KPC defended the transfer saying its human resource policy allowed it to deploy staff according to needs. It noted that Mr Mulogosi’s technical expertise was needed for commissioning work at the Nairobi terminal.

According to the firm, Nairobi station (PS 10 Nairobi Terminal) required highly skilled personnel to support critical operations and the commissioning of a new bottom loading facility.

It argued that owing to Mr Mulogosi’s technical expertise, the management considered him the most suitable officer for deployment to the station.

The company said he received a Sh336,000 transfer allowance to facilitate his relocation to the capital city.

The court examined KPC’s human resource policy and found that its transfer power came with conditions.

The policy allows transfers for business needs but also states that “no staff shall be transferred on any disciplinary grounds.”

The policy further requires management to consider personal and social circumstances of employees proposed for transfer because of service needs.

Justice Onyango said an employer retains the power to transfer staff, but that power must be exercised concerning the affected employee’s circumstances.

“If an employee who has been taken through retirement planning by the employer is to be transferred, a reasonable employer is expected to explain to such employee why such action is to be taken and hear representations of the employee before making a final decision,” the court said.

In letters to KPC dated July and October 2025, the petitioner said he had been told the transfer followed issues raised at his station about his conduct and performance.

 Among the allegations, he said, was that he reported to work wearing suits and “just sitting in the office”. He also said he was accused of failing to make vital decisions.

Mr Mulogosi said he had never been given particulars of those allegations or heard through a disciplinary process.

He reported to Nairobi after the transfer but continued challenging the decision internally. His appeals and reminders were not substantively answered, according to the judgment.

KPC disputed his account and maintained that the transfer was operational. The court found that the transfer letter did not identify special reasons for the move and that the company had not produced evidence supporting the claimed operational needs.

The judge said the circumstances pointed to a punitive transfer without due process.

“The manner in which the petitioner’s transfer was handled demonstrates a lot of insensitivity and high-handedness on the part of the Respondent,” Justice Onyango said.

The court stated: “It was clearly against his legitimate expectations that he would be consulted before retirement and that he would not be punished without due process.”

Further, the court found that there was a policy in the Public Sector to the effect that employees nearing retirement are transferred to work near their homes to enable them to integrate into the community in preparation for retirement.

“The transfer of the petitioner away from the place where he had settled by default of the respondent in having him work at the same station from the time he was employed and refusing to reconsider the decision even after so many appeals, while giving no compelling reason for uprooting the petitioner from the station, amounts to unfair labour practice,” said the court.

The court quashed the transfer letter and prohibited KPC from enforcing the transfer or taking disciplinary action against the petitioner over it.

“The transfer of the petitioner was in bad faith and intended to punish him without a hearing. It was clearly against his legitimate expectations that he would be consulted before retirement and that he would not be punished without due process,” the court concluded.

For employees approaching retirement, the case puts another issue into focus: retirement planning is not only about money. It could involve family care, housing, religious responsibilities, community ties and arrangements built over many years.