Court Rules Against Former Flutterwave Employee’s $900,000 Appeal for Emotional Distress Damages

The High Court of Kenya, sitting at Nairobi, has dismissed the appeal filed by a former employee of Flutterwave, Clara Wanjiku Odero, over alleged emotional distress and reputational damage after her former employer Flutterwave failed to remove her contact details from its M Pesa Paybill account following her departure from the firm in 2018.

Justice Alexander Muasya Muteti in his judgement held that the appellant (Odero) was unable to prove the special damages for the therapist she allegedly consulted.

Odero had sought $900,000 in damages as claims for emotional distress and reputational damage against her former employer, Flutterwave.

Odero’s initial suit alleged that in failing to remove her number from the company’s bill contact list after her resignation, led to a series of inquiries from the fintech’s customers which she claimed caused her public embarrassment, emotional distress, and reputational damage.

She claimed that as a result, customers continued to contact her regarding company related issues long after she had left her role as Head of Implementation for Rest of Africa at Flutterwave.

The appellant urges the court to find that the respondent’s failure to remove her name from the records held by Safaricom in respect to their pay bill was negligent and unlawful since she had already left employment with the respondent company.

The appellant contends that the Magistrate’s decision that there was no causal link between the emotional distress suffered by her and the respondent’s failure to remove her name from the records in connection with the pay bill number used to organise the sex party, was erroneous and not backed by evidence.

But, the respondent in its response admitted that the appellant was their former employee who served as an expansion manager in charge of the company’s operations till 3 October 2018 when she resigned from the company.

As an expansion manager, she was responsible for setting up the aggregate pay bill model with Safaricom PLC which role she played and her contact details were registered as the contact person.

The respondent maintained that when the appellant resigned, they informed Safaricom and requested change of the contact details on the pay bill number set up by the appellant

However, in his judgement Justice Muteti held that the appellant was able to prove that she worked for the respondent and as a result her contact details were registered by Safaricom PLC as the contact person for their aggregate pay bill.

The court held: “No doubt after she left the company her contact details continued to feature against the pay bill number, a fact that the respondent’s witness admitted.

“It is however not clear from her evidence how she links up the company to the sex party that she says was the cause of her public embarrassment.

“From my independent analysis of evidence, I do not find the company’s involvement in the sex party organisation.

“It is also important to note that the appellant did not present evidence from the police who investigated the issue of the sex party to determine whether there was fault on the part of the respondent.

“The appellant did not link the respondent to the money that was being collected for the sex party.

“In my considered view, the learned Honourable Magistrate was correct in his finding that there was no causal link nor proof of the emotional distress suffered by the appellant in the hands of the police.

“The case by the appellant is one basically premised on the duty of care that the respondent owed to the appellant regarding the use of the pay bill number.

“The number having been registered by the appellant for and on behalf of the respondent company, once she left the service of the company, the respondent was duty bound to ensure that the number was used purely for the purpose it was intended for.

“Any abuse of the pay bill number would attract consequences against the company. The respondent does not deny that the number continued in use bearing the contact details of the appellant.

The respondent knew too well that the appellant had left employment thus the company had no business in maintaining the contact details of the appellant in their pay bill.

“The respondent in this appeal ought to have had knowledge of the risk that the appellant would be exposed to if the pay bill continued in use with her contact details, whilst she had left their employment.

“The respondent ought to have known that in this era of technology, infiltration of a pay bill by unauthorised persons for illegal activities is possible thus it would be their responsibility to prevent such from happening.

“The respondent cannot escape liability for any breach such as that which happened in this case.

“Once the appellant had left employment and handed over, it was the responsibility of the respondent to immediately close the pay bill account or ensure that the contact details of the appellant had been removed.

“The Appellant was able to prove on a balance of probabilities there was breach. The Respondent cannot escape liability by simply stating that they informed Safaricom to effect the changes.”

Wale Igbintade

Follow us on: