Muga & 7 others v Safaricom PLC & another (Petition E129 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1349 (KLR) (20 May 2026) (Ruling)

Muga & 7 others v Safaricom PLC & another (Petition E129 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1349 (KLR) (20 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1349 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Petition E129 of 2026 M Mbarũ, J May 20, 2026 Between Evans Ochieng Muga 1st Petitioner Grace Wangui Nganga 2nd Petitioner Alex Alukonya 3rd Petitioner Catherine Mwangi 4th Petitioner Dominic Asumu Ohimga 5th Petitioner Kevin Momanyi 6th Petitioner Michael Atema Akal 7th Petitioner William Muchere Murunga 8th Petitioner and Safaricom Plc 1st Respondent Odhiambo Ooko 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.The Petitioners filed an application dated 23 April 2026 brought pursuant to Section 3A and 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 50 Rules 1 and 3, Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3 and 4, Section 25 and 31 of the Data Protection Act, Article 31(c) & (d) of the Constitution seeking the following orders:1.Spent.2.That pending the hearing and determination of the Application inter-panes and determination of this suit, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents, their agents, servants and/ or employees or representatives from further sharing the Petitioners' personal data relating to their digital identity, Mpesa transactions and communication.3.That the cost of this application be provided for. 2.The application is supported by the Affidavit of Evans Ochieng Muga, the 1st Petitioner and because:i.The Respondents obtained, revealed and shared the Petitioners' personal data relating to their digital identity, Mpesa financial transactions and communication in contravention of Article 31(c) & (d) of the Constitution, the Data Protection Act, 2019.ii.The Petitioners are apprehensive that, unless restrained by this Court, the Respondents will continue to infringe on their fundamental privacy rights.iii. The Petitioners are seeking alternative employment after the Respondents illegally and unprocedurally terminated their employment. 3.In his affidavit, Muga avers that he has the authority of the Petitioners to make the affidavit and statements on their behalf in support of the application. He avers that he was employed by the 1st Respondent between 4 May 2009 and 25 November 2025 in the roles as follows:1.4 May 2009 to 26 June 2009, as a Retail Agent TRN in the Retail Sales Department.2.June 27, 2009 to March 31, 2010 as Retail Centre Agent in the Regional Sales, Operations- Greater Western3.April 1, 2010 to 6 February 2011 as Retail Centre Agent in the Regional Sales, Operations-Greater Western4.7 February 2011 to 26 December 2013 as Stock Controller in the Regional Sales, Operations- Greater Western5.December 27, 2013 to 31 March 2014 as Stock Controller in the Regional Sales, Operations- Greater Western6.April, 2014 to November l, 2015 as Account Relationship Manager in the Enterprise Sales, Retention Department- Public, Corporate7.2 November 2015 to March 31, 2021 as Manager-Trade Marketing in the Regional Sales, Operations-Greater Western8.1 April 2021 to 31 August 2022 as Manager- Trade Marketing in the Regional Sales; Operations- Rift9.1 September 2022, to November 25, 2025, as Regional Marketing Lead• Coast within the Channels function, reporting to the Frontline Operations Lead (Retail, Trade & Terminals) 4.The 2nd Petitioner was employed by the 1st Respondent between October l, 2013 and 7 October 2025 in the roles as follows:1.1 October 2013 to 31 October 2013 as Customer Experience Executive in the Regional Sales, Operations - Mountain2.1 November 2013 to August 17, 2014 as Customer Experience Executive in the Regional Sales, Operations - Mountain3.18 August 2014 to 31 March 2016 as Stock Controller in the Regional Sales, Operations - Mountain4.1 April 2016 to 31 December 2018 as Team Leader, Retail Centre Operations in the Retail Sales Department5.1 November 2017 to 31 January 2018 as Manager - Retail Centre in the Regional Sales, Operations - Mountain6.January l, 2019, to 16 January 2022 as Retail Centre- Manager in the Regional Sales, Operations - Greater Western7.17 January 2022 to 5 January 2025 as Retail Centre Manager in the Retail Sales Department8.6 January 2025 to 7 October 2025 as Territory Business Lead in the Regional Sales; Operations - Rift 5.The 3rd Petitioner was employed by the 1st Respondent between 4 October 2010 and 7 October 2025 in the roles as follows:1.4 October 2010 to 26 December 2013 as Stock Controller in the Regional Sales, Operations - Coast2.December 27, 2013 to January 5, 2014 as Stock Controller in the Regional Sales, Operations - Coast3.6 January 2014 to 12 January 2014 as Team Leader, Retail Centre Financials in the Regional Sales, Operations - Coast4.13 January 2014 to December l, 2015 as Team Leader, Retail Centre Operations in the Regional Sales, Operations - Coast5.December 3, 2015 to 17 April 2016 as Customer Experience-Executive in the Regional Sales, Operations - Coast6.18 April 2016 to 31 December 2018 as Team Leader-Retail Operations in the Regional Sales, Operations - Coast7.1 January 2019 to 31 August 2024 as Manager - Retail Centre in the Regional Sales, Operations - Rift8.1 September 2024 to 31 March 2025 as Manager - Retail Centre in the Regional Sales, Operations - Rift9.April 1, 2025, to 7 October 2025 as Territory Business Lead in the Regional Sales, Operations - Rift 1 September 2024 6.The 4th Petitioner was employed by the 1st Respondent between 2 June 2011 and 24 November 2025 in the roles as follows:1.2 June 2011 to 31 October 2013 as Trade Marketing Executive in the Consumer Business Unit Cluster2.1 November 2013 to 9 November 2014 as Senior Officer-Trade Marketing in the Consumer Business Unit Cluster3.12 February 2015 to 31 May 2015 as Manager - Devices Sales in the Consumer Sales Department4.1 June 2015 to 31 August 2015 as Senior Manager - Media, Market Activations in the Marketing Division5.1 September 2015 to 30 June 2019 as Manager - Trade Marketing in the Regional Sales, Operations - Nairobi East; Coast Department6.1 July 2019 to 31 December 2019 as Manager - Devices Open Market in the Market Development Department7.1 January 2020 to August 31, 2022 as Manager - Trade Marketing in the Regional Sales, Operations - Nairobi Metropolitan8.1 September 2022 to 24 November 2025 as Regional Marketing Lead in the Frontline Marketing CoE 7.The 5th Petitioner was employed by the 1st Respondent between November 7, 2016 and 24 November 2025 in the roles as follows:1.7 November 2016 to 31 March 2023 as Driver - RIG in the Regional Sales; Operations - Greater Western2.1 April 2023 to 9 September 2024 as Driver - RIG in the Regional Sales, Operations - Greater Western3.1 April 2023 to 9 September 2024 as Driver - RIG in the Regional Sales, Operations - Greater Western4.10 September 2024 to 24 November 2025 as a Driver in the Frontline Marketing CoE 8.The 6th Petitioner was employed by the 1st Respondent between January 7, 2019 and 20 October 2025 in the roles as follows:1.7 January 2019 to 30 April 2022 as Territory Account Manager in the Enterprise Channels Marketing CoE2.1 May 2022 to 31 July 2023 as Manager - Regional Sales in the Enterprise Channels Marketing CoE3.1 August 2023 to 31 July 2024 as Regional Sales Lead in the LB, GW, and Network Squad4.1 August 2024 to 20 October 2025 as Territory Business Lead in the Regional Sales, Operations - Greater Western 9.The 7th Petitioner was employed by the 1st Respondent between 4 May 2009 and 25 November 2025, in the roles as follows:1.29 October 2007 and 28 October 2025 as a Trainee in the Customer Management2.25 December 2007 to 31 January 2008 as Retail Service in the Regional Sales, Operations - Greater Western3.1 February 2008 to 31 August 2008 as Retail Centre Agent in the Regional Sales, Operations - Nairobi Metropolitan4.1 September 2008 to 28 September 2009 as Senior Retail Agent in the Regional Sales, Operations - Nairobi Metropolitan5.October l, 2009 to 31 March 2011 as Retail Area Sales Champion in the Retail Sales Department6.1 April 2011 to 31 August 2012 as Dealer Manager in the Consumer Sales Department7.1 September 2012 to 31 March 2014 as Area Retail Manager - Western, Nyanza in the Retail Sales Department8.1 April 2014 to 31 August 2015 as Channel Manager, Retail Sales in the Retail Sales C3 - Safaricom Confidential External Department9.1 September 2015 to March 31, 2021 as Manager - Trade Marketing in the Regional Sales, Operations - Rift10.1 April 2021 to August 31, 2022 as Manager - Trade Marketing in the Regional Sales, Operations - Coast11.1 September 2022, to 28 October 2025 as Regional Marketing Lead in the Frontline Marketing CoE 10.The 8th Petitioner was employed by the 1st Respondent between 7 May 2017 and 13 October 2025 in the roles as follows:1.7 May 2017 to 9 September 2024 Driver in the Regional Sales, Operations - Coast2.10 September 2024 to 13 October 2025 as a Driver in the Frontline Marketing CoE 11.The Petitioners were subjected to Ethics and Compliance interrogations and were made to sign prepared statements:i.The 1st Petitioner on 1st October 2025 and 10th of November, 2025ii.The 2nd Petitioner on 29th September 2025iii.The 3rd Petitioner on 29th September 2025iv.The 4th Petitioner on 16th October 2025v.The 5th Petitioner on 1st October 2025vi.The 6th Petitioner on 7th October 2025vii.The 7th Petitioner on 28th October 2025viii.The 8th Petitioner on 29th September 2025 12.The 2nd Respondent issued the 1st Petitioner a letter dated 21 October 2025, to show cause by Friday, 24 October 2025, why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the allegations of Conflict of Interest and abuse of position, and direct payment of Kshs—132,000.00 from YDX Agency Limited, and Corruption and bribery. 13.The 2nd Petitioner received a letter dated 15 October 2025, to Show Cause by Tuesday, 21 October 2025, why disciplinary action should not be taken against her for the allegations of Conflict of Interest and abuse of position. 14.The 3rd Petitioner received a letter dated 15 October 2025, directing him to Show Cause by Tuesday, 21 October 2025, why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the allegations of Conflict of Interest and abuse of position. He was alleged to have irregularly received a total of Kshs 533,600.00 from agencies engaged by Safaricom through MSISDNs 721943742 and 700454545, which were registered in his name. 15.The 4th Petitioner was issued with a letter dated 23 October 2025 to Show Cause by Monday, 27 October 2025, why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the allegations of Conflict of Interest and abuse of position. That he irregularly received direct transfer from Persons operating agencies - Clement Mwangi Wambugu operating Citrine Agencies Limited and Michael Ndungu Gitaka of Stan Consulting Group Limited – and through individuals linked to the agencies. That he engaged in Corruption and bribery by using third-party intermediaries, individuals linked to these agencies, to facilitate the transfers is a deliberate attempt to obscure the origin of the funds. 16.The 5th Petitioner was issued with a letter dated 21 October 2025 to Show Cause by Friday 24th October 2025 why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the allegations of Conflict of Interest and abuse of position that On diverse dates between August 2023 and September 2025, he received monies totaling to Kes.200,387.00 directly and indirectly from the marketing agencies through one of the Agencies directors and Chrispine Onyango who is the representative of the agencies for personal use. 17.The 2nd Respondent issued the 6th Petitioner with a Letter dated 27 October 2025, to Show Cause by Friday 31st October 2025, why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the allegations of Findings of transfers from subscribers associated with the agencies, through employment or subcontracting. That he received Kshs. 21,000 from MSISDN - 711 436 931 – Chrispine Oyoo Onyango. An analysis of P2P transfers into his wallet for the period between 1 January 2023 and 30 September 2025 revealed an incoming transaction totalling Kshs 21,000 from the referenced user. 18.The 7th Petitioner was issued a Letter dated 5 November 2025, to Show Cause by Monday, 10 November 2025, why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the allegations and findings of transfers from subscribers associated with the agencies, through employment or subcontracting. He received Kshs. 110,000 from subscribers linked to the Agencies contracted by Safaricom. He received the transfers to his Qona Sacco account. Investigations showed that the user(s) had received funds from some of the Agencies providing Below-The-Line (BTL) services to Safaricom, including Stan Consulting and Jayden, among others. The 7th petitioner was alleged to have influenced the Agencies contracted by Safaricom to subcontract services to close associates. There was a direct payment of Kshs. 611,000 from Gladys Martha Maisiba. It is alleged that the petitioner referred agencies Top Image, Citrine, and Hauz to Gladys for the provision of sound services during activations. As RML, he compelled the agencies to engage Gladys for sound and tent services. Non-compliance reportedly resulted in threats and hostile behaviour, including unfavourable performance evaluations and alleged delays in payment processing. 19.The 7th petitioner was also accused of abusing his position of authority by using it to influence the agencies - Top Image, Hauz, and Citrine, among others - into contracting with Glady. 20.The 8th petitioner is alleged to have engaged in Conflict of Interest, Breach of the Anti-Corruption and Anti-Bribery Policy, Conflict of Interest and abuse of position, and Findings of transfers from subscribers associated with the agencies, through agency directors and received Kshs. 210,000.00 from MSISDNs – 700827428 - associated with Clement Mw Angi Wambugu And 725522073 – Associated With Elizabeth Julie Wambui. In June and September 2024, he received Kes 210,000.00 from the above-mentioned directors of Citrine Agencies Ltd, an agency with an active contract with Safaricom. 21.Petitioners aver that, despite not being accorded adequate time, each responded to the show-cause letters as required by the Respondents. The 2nd Respondent invited each Petitioner to attend a disciplinary hearing on various dates and chaired the virtual hearings. The Petitioners were not issued with the minutes of the disciplinary hearings. 22.The Petitioners were each issued a summary dismissal letter. They lodged appeals against their summary dismissal, which were rejected without a formal hearing, and the decisions were communicated in writing. 23.The Petitioners, by a letter dated 3 March 2026, issued to the Respondents a Notice to Access Information and requested that the following be furnished:1.Copy of the official minutes and the full transcripts (audio recordings) for Ethics and Compliance;2.Statements;3.Official minutes and the full transcripts (audio recordings) for the disciplinary hearing via Teams on 17 November 2025;4.Copy of Safaricom Code of Conduct;5.Copy of Conflict-of-Interest Policy;6.Copy of Anti-Corruption & Bribery Policy;7.Copy of Staff Manual;8.Copy of Disciplinary Policy and Procedure 24.The Respondents have ignored, refused and declined to furnish the Petitioners with the requested documents. 25.In reply, the Respondents filed a Replying Affidavit of Odhiambo Ooko, the Chapter Lead – Employee and Labour Relations of the 1st Respondent. He avers that the petitioners do not disclose any reasonable cause of action against him in his personal capacity. His joinder in these proceedings was therefore misconceived, malicious, oppressive, and intended solely to embarrass him for actions undertaken in the ordinary course of his duties as an officer of the Respondent. He thus applies to have his name struck out from these proceedings with costs. 26.The Respondent avers that the application is fundamentally defective because it fails to disclose any actionable breach of law on the part of the Respondent. Instead, the Applicants have merely set out a chronology of events and actions allegedly taken by the Respondent, without demonstrating how those actions violate any provision of the Constitution, the Data Protection Act, the Employment Act, or any other written law. 27.The application, therefore, rests on conjecture, apprehension, and bare allegations and does not meet the legal threshold for the grant of the injunctive or conservatory orders sought. The orders sought are intended to obstruct and restrain the Respondent from cooperating with relevant authorities in lawful investigative, regulatory, and legal processes. The orders are therefore untenable and ought not to issue in the absence of a clearly pleaded and demonstrable breach of any specific provision of the law by the Respondent. 28.Ooko avers that the orders sought, if granted, would insulate the Applicants from lawful scrutiny and prevent the Respondent from cooperating with competent investigative agencies regarding suspected breaches of law. While the Respondent acknowledges the Applicants’ right to privacy and protection of personal data, that right is not absolute and cannot be weaponised to frustrate lawful investigations, defeat statutory obligations, or prevent disclosure of relevant information to authorities where such disclosure is necessary and lawful. The proper legal safeguard is not an absolute gag order against disclosure, but lawful, proportionate, and purpose-limited processing of data. 29.The Respondent shall, where required, ensure that any disclosure is limited to relevant information, made through appropriate channels, and undertaken solely for purposes of investigation, compliance with lawful process, and/or the establishment, exercise or defence of legal rights. The Court should therefore decline to grant orders that would paralyse investigations, obstruct the due administration of justice, and confer upon the Applicants an unwarranted immunity from accountability. 30.The Petitioners were employees of the 1st Respondent, serving in various positions within the 1st Respondent's business operations, as admitted. In 2025, in the course of internal compliance reviews and investigations, the 1st Respondent received information and complaints raising concerns relating to:-i.conflict of interest;ii.abuse of office;iii.improper dealings with vendors, agents, and contractors associated with the 1st Respondent;iv.unexplained financial transfers involving persons associated with agencies and contractors engaged by the 1st Respondent; and,v.potential breaches of the 1st Respondent’s internal ethics, anti-bribery, and anti-corruption policies.Upon receipt of the said concerns, the 1st Respondent commenced internal investigations in line with:i.internal Human Resource Policies;ii.Ethics and Compliance Policies;iii.Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policies;iv.Conflict of Interest Policies;v.its statutory and regulatory obligations; andvi.its legitimate business and corporate governance obligations. 31.That the investigations and disciplinary processes complained of were undertaken strictly within the framework of the employment relationship and in exercise of the 1st Respondent’s lawful managerial and compliance mandate. 32.The Petitioners were thereafter issued show-cause letters, accorded an opportunity to respond, and subsequently invited to disciplinary hearings. The processing, review, and use of the Petitioners’ personal data and transaction information was undertaken solely for purposes connected to:i.internal investigations;ii.disciplinary proceedings;iii.compliance reviews;iv.fraud prevention and detection;v.preservation of evidence;vi.legal compliance; andvii.protection of the 1st Respondent’s legitimate interests. 33.That contrary to the allegations made by the Petitioners, the Respondents have not unlawfully shared, disseminated, or publicised the Petitioners’ personal data. That the Petitioners have not identified the specific information allegedly unlawfully disclosed; the persons to whom such information was allegedly disclosed; the dates of the alleged disclosures; the purpose of the alleged disclosures; or the prejudice allegedly suffered. 34.Any review, handling, transmission, or processing of the Petitioners’ information was limited to authorised personnel, departments, and professional advisers involved in investigations, disciplinary proceedings, legal compliance, internal governance, litigation management, and regulatory compliance. 35.At no time did the Respondents publish or disseminate the Petitioners’ information to the public as alleged or at all. The Petitioners have deliberately failed to distinguish between: lawful internal processing of employee information, and unlawful public dissemination. Internal handling of employee information for legitimate employment, compliance, and legal purposes does not amount to unlawful disclosure within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution or the Data Protection Act. 36.That the 1st Respondent is a regulated corporate entity with legal, contractual, and regulatory obligations relating to: anti-corruption compliance; fraud prevention; internal governance; audit and compliance obligations; employment management; and preservation of corporate integrity. 37.The processing complained of was lawful, necessary, proportionate, and justified under the Data Protection Act, including for purposes of: legitimate interests pursued by the employer; performance and management of the employment relationship; compliance with legal obligations; establishment, exercise and defence of legal claims; and prevention and detection of improper conduct. 38.The Petitioners cannot invoke the right to privacy to shield themselves from legitimate investigations and disciplinary processes lawfully undertaken by an employer. The petitioners seek to restrain the Respondents from undertaking lawful obligations incidental to the defence of these proceedings, including engaging advocates, complying with obligations, preparing witnesses, fulfilling legal reporting obligations, and cooperating with competent regulatory or investigative agencies. 39.Ooko avers that the interim orders issued herein are broad and ambiguous and are capable of being interpreted in a manner that interferes with other lawful procedures. Unless clarified or varied, the said orders may prejudice the Respondents’ ability to defend these proceedings and comply with legal and regulatory obligations. 40.The Petitioners have not demonstrated any imminent danger of unlawful publication, dissemination, or irreparable prejudice warranting the grant of injunctive relief. The Petitioners’ allegations are speculative, generalised, and unsupported by evidence. 41.That the balance of convenience tilts heavily in favour of allowing the 1st Respondent to process data in its possession lawfully, the application appears calculated to interfere with lawful processes and to convert lawful disciplinary investigations into alleged constitutional violations. The Petitioners have failed to establish a prima facie case with probability of success; violation of constitutional rights; unlawful processing under the Data Protection Act; irreparable harm; or grounds warranting conservatory or injunctive relief. 42.That the Petitioners have approached this Court without full and frank disclosure of material facts. That it is in the interests of justice that the interim orders issued herein be discharged, varied and clarified, and the application be dismissed with costs. Determination 43.The essence of the petitioners' application is to seek a restraining order against the respondents from further sharing their personal data relating to their digital identity, M-Pesa transactions, and communications. 44.The respondents assert that there has been no sharing of such data with third parties outside the legal protections and outside the internal investigations, disciplinary proceedings, compliance reviews, fraud prevention and detection and preservation of evidence. 45.The 2nd respondent has protested his judgment in these proceedings. He asserts that he is merely an officer of the 1st respondent, performing his duties. Indeed, joinder of a party as a respondent must be based on the relief or remedies sought against such a party. In an employment relationship, an officer of the employer who is intricately involved in the dispute may also be enjoined as a party. However, in this case, the petitioners fault the 2nd respondent for issuing the show cause notices to them, and no specific relief is sought against him. The employment relationship was between the petitioners and the 1st respondent. As an officer of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent may be called as a witness; otherwise, his joinder in these proceedings is unnecessary, as he had no employment relationship with the petitioners. 46.Under the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, a respondent is defined to include:“respondent” means a person who is alleged to have denied, violated, infringed, or threatened to deny, violate or infringe a right or fundamental freedom; 47.Under these provisions, the employment relationship is between the petitioners and the 1st respondent; the 2nd respondent, also an employee of the 1st respondent, need not be joined as a respondent in these proceedings. The 2nd respondent is thus removed. 48.On whether to issue an injunction restraining the 1st respondent or not, the court is guided by principles now settled in various authorities, including Nguruman Limited v Nielsen & 2 others [2014] KECA 606 (KLR), Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358, and Mrao Ltd. v First American Bank of Kenya Limited & 2 Others [2003], KLR 125 49.In an interlocutory injunction application, the applicant has to satisfy the triple requirements:1.establish his case only at a prima facie level,2.demonstrate irreparable injury if a temporary injunction is not granted, and3.ally any doubts as to (b) by showing that the balance of convenience is in his favour. 50.The petitioners have since lost their employment with the 1st respondent. The gist of the IR petition is to seek various declarations, including the protection of their personal data, and to address the alleged obtaining, disclosure, and sharing of their personal data, digital identity, M-Pesa financial transactions, and communications. The 1st respondent thus has applied investigations to arrive at t a decision to terminate employment. The petitioners lodged appeals, which were declined. 51.Under section 31(c) and (d) of the Data Protection Act and article 31 of the Constitution, the petitioners have made a case that, unless protected, the respondent will continue to use and share their personal data, thereby infringing on their right to privacy. They are seeking alternative employment; as such, their personal data should be protected. 52.Whereas in employment relations, the employee is required under section 47(5) of the Employment Act to establish a prima facie case showing that the termination of employment was unfair or did not meet the standards set under Section 45 of the Act, the employer is allowed under section 43 to justify the reasons leading to the decision to terminate the employment. About the application of the Data Protection Act and privacy protections under the constitution, a balance is necessary when the employee has made a claim, and the employer is required to justify its action. 53.The petitioners have not stated the damage to be suffered, save to urge the court that they are seeking alternative employment after the respondent illegally terminated their employment. Employability and the securing of new employment opportunities fall within the realm of fair labour practices. 54.By hearing the main petition, a determination thereof will address the dispute. 55.The petitioners are also seeking various documents from the respondent.These includes;1.Copy of the official minutes and the full transcripts (audio recordings) for Ethics and Compliance;2.Statements;3.Official minutes and the full transcripts (audio recordings) for the disciplinary hearing via Teams on 17 November 2025;4.Copy of Safaricom Code of Conduct;5.Copy of Conflict-of-Interest Policy;6.Copy of Anti-Corruption & Bribery Policy;7.Copy of Staff Manual;8.Copy of Disciplinary Policy and Procedure 56.In his Replying Affidavit, Ooko avers that upon receipt of various complaints against the petitioners, the 1st Respondent commenced internal investigations in line with:i.Internal Human Resource Policies;ii.Ethics and Compliance Policies;iii.Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policies;iv.Conflict of Interest Policies;v.its statutory and regulatory obligations; andvi.legitimate business and corporate governance obligations. 57.These records should be made available to the petitioners to allow them to review and urge their case. They have already been used to arrive at decisions to issue show-cause notices, hold disciplinary hearings, grant appeals, and issue termination notices. 58.The Petitioners, by a letter dated 3 March 2026, issued to the Respondents a Notice to Access Information and requested that the following be furnished:a.Copy of the official minutes and the full transcripts (audio recordings) for Ethics and Compliance;b.Statements;c.Official minutes and the full transcripts (audio recordings) for the disciplinary hearing via Teams on 17 November 2025;d.Copy of Safaricom Code of Conduct;e.Copy of Conflict-of-Interest Policy;f.Copy of Anti-Corruption & Bribery Policy;g.Copy of Staff Manual;h.Copy of Disciplinary Policy and Procedure 60.These records shall be supplied to the petitioners within 14 days. The petitioners shall, at their costs, attend the shop floor and secure these records. 61.Application dated 23 April 2026, thus addressed, and orders sought shall not issue save as addressed above. Costs to abide by the petition's outcome. DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI, THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY 2026M. MBARŨJUDGEIn the presence of:Court Assistants: Catherine and Kemboi……………………………………………… and…………………………………..…………..