The High Court has affirmed that employers are entitled to inspect company-issued laptops, even where such checks reveal an employee’s private information stored on the device.
The ruling was delivered by the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi in a case involving a former hotel employee who alleged that her dismissal breached her right to privacy on July 21.
The employee had worked for the hotel for more than five years before her termination. She challenged the employer’s decision to access her personal data during an internal inspection of her work laptop.
Court documents show that the inspection began after a scheduling issue raised questions about whether the employee was adequately monitoring her official emails and calendar.
Hotel officials subsequently discovered that she had failed to respond to work emails, issued incorrect banquet event orders and overlooked several calendar updates.
The investigation also established that the employee had connected her personal email account to the work laptop. At the same time, the hotel had configured her official work email on her personal phone.
However, the court found that the overlap between her personal and official activities did not prevent the employer from examining the device after concerns over her work performance had emerged.
Justice Makau ruled that workplace equipment, including laptops and email systems, remains the property of the employer, regardless of how employees use the equipment.
The judgment further held that employees who combine personal activities with official duties using company property cannot subsequently claim that their privacy was breached simply because the employer conducted an inspection.
The court determined that the hotel’s inspection was lawful, proportionate and prompted by a legitimate business concern. As a result, it rejected the employee’s claims that her right to privacy had been violated.
However, the judge found that the termination itself had not been carried out in accordance with fair procedure, meaning the employee was entitled to compensation.
The court awarded her two months’ salary in lieu of notice. Based on her monthly salary of Ksh127,650, the award amounted to Ksh255,300.
Justice Makau acknowledged that the employee had served the hotel for more than five years but noted that her own misconduct played a significant role in the events leading to her departure.
The ruling provides an important reference for Kenyan workplaces, particularly on the limits of employee privacy when personal information is stored on employer-owned equipment.
It also highlights the need for employers and employees to clearly separate personal activities from official work when using company devices and communication systems.
