Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedCivil Appeal 305 of 2014· [2017] KECA 798 (KLR)

Nyandiko v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd

Court of Appeal
19 May 2017
3,021 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal (Waki, Nambuye and Kiage, JJA) allowed Janet Nyandiko's first appeal against the Industrial Court (Makau, J) judgment of 8 February 2013 in her claim for wrongful termination by Kenya Commercial Bank. Both parties conceded before the appellate court that the termination was procedurally unfair because the bank failed to follow the laid-down procedures: the appellant was suspended and neither invited to disciplinary proceedings nor given an opportunity to respond during the disciplinary or appellate processes. The single issue for determination was therefore whether the remedies awarded were too low. The Court held that the valid reasons the trial judge identified for loss of confidence were not contained in the letter of termination and so did not suffice. On remedies, the Court applied the settled principles that an appellate court interferes with damages only where the award is inordinately high or low, represents an entirely erroneous estimate, or proceeds on wrong principles, and found the award of one month's salary in lieu of notice too low. It affirmed the notice pay, added three months' salary as compensation for unfair termination under section 49 of the Employment Act, and awarded the pleaded Kshs. 188,741.25 for 45 leave days not taken, rejecting the 86 days shown on the bank's records because the appellant was bound by her pleadings. The appeal was allowed, the trial award set aside and substituted, with costs to the appellant on appeal and below. The judgment binds subordinate courts and the Employment and Labour Relations Court on the requirements of sections 41, 45 and 49 and the pleadings principle.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination was unfair for want of valid reasons and procedural compliance

Holding

Yes. The reasons relied on by the trial judge were not in the letter of termination, and the appellant was neither given reasons nor invited to respond during disciplinary or appellate processes.

Reasoning

Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act mandatorily require the employer to explain reasons to the employee and hear representations. Both counsel conceded the appellant did not participate in any disciplinary proceedings. The bank's letter of termination referenced prior correspondence but did not state the valid reasons the trial judge identified, so no valid reasons were communicated.

02

Whether the remedies awarded were too low

Holding

Yes. The award of only one month's salary in lieu of notice was too low; three months' salary as compensation for unfair termination was substituted, plus the pleaded leave days payment.

Reasoning

Section 49 provides a wide range of remedies. Applying the Butt v Khan and Kitavi v Coastal Bottlers principles, the court found the award represented an entirely erroneous estimate given the conceded procedural unfairness, and interfered by adding three months' salary as compensation while affirming the notice pay.

p. 5
03

Whether payment for 86 leave days (per the bank's record) or 45 leave days (as pleaded) should be awarded

Holding

Only the 45 leave days as pleaded and quantified at Kshs. 188,741.25 could be awarded; the appellant is bound by her pleadings.

Reasoning

Although a bank-generated document showed a balance of 86 leave days not taken, the claim pleaded was for 45 days at Kshs. 188,741.25. Following Gandy v Gaspar Air Charters, Odd Jobs v Mubia and Galaxy Paints v Falcon Guards, relief not founded on the pleadings cannot be granted unless pleadings are amended.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A termination may be lawful yet procedurally unfair where the employer fails to accord the employee the procedure under sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act, including reasons and an opportunity to respond.
  • Valid reasons for termination must be contained in the letter of termination; reasons identified by a court but absent from the letter do not suffice.
  • Parties are bound by their pleadings; relief not founded on the pleadings will not be given even where the underlying entitlement appears on the record.
  • An appellate court will not disturb an award of damages unless it is so inordinately high or low as to represent an entirely erroneous estimate, or the judge proceeded on wrong principles or misapprehended the evidence.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Payment of Kshs. 188,741.25 for the forty five leave days entitlement not taken
  2. 2.One month's salary in lieu of notice as awarded by the learned Judge affirmed
  3. 3.Three months salary as compensation for unfair termination
  4. 4.Appeal allowed; trial court's award set aside and substituted with the above awards
  5. 5.Appellant to have costs both on appeal and in the court below

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 45
  • Employment Actsection 41
  • Employment Actsection 46
  • Employment Actsection 49
  • Employment ActNo. 11 of 2007
  • Labour Relations Actsection 16(c)
  • Industrial Court Actsection 12(vi)

Cases cited (11)

  • Selle versus Associated Motor Boat Co.
    [1968] EA 123

    Duty of a first appellate court: retrial, reconsider and evaluate evidence, making allowance for not seeing witnesses.

  • Abdul Hameed Saif vs. Ali Mohamed Sholan
    (1955), 22 EACA 270

    Appellate court not bound by trial judge's findings of fact where he failed to account for circumstances or probabilities.

  • Jabane vs. Olenja
    [1986] KLR 664

    Court will not lightly differ from trial judge's findings of fact; interference only where based on no evidence or wrong principles.

  • Ephantus Mwangi vs. Duncan Mwangi Wambugu
    (1982-88) 1 KAR 278

    Principles for interfering with trial judge's findings of fact.

  • Mwanasokoni vs. Kenya Bus Services
    (1982-88) 1 KAR 870

    Principles for interfering with trial judge's findings of fact.

  • Gandy versus Gaspar Air Charters Limited
    [1956] 23 EACA 139

    Object of pleadings; relief not founded on the pleadings will not be given.

  • Odd Jobs versus Mubia
    [1970] EA 476

    Court may base decision on an unpleaded issue if it was left to the court for decision at trial.

  • Galaxy Paints Co. Ltd versus Falcon Guards Ltd
    [2000] 2 EA 385

    Issues flow from pleadings; parties confined to their pleadings unless amended.

  • Butt versus Khan
    [1981] KLR 349

    Appellate court cannot interfere with trial court's decision unless judge proceeded on wrong principle and arrived at misconceived estimates.

  • Kimatu Mbuvi t/a Kimatu Mbuvi & Bros versus Augustine Munyao Kioko
    [2006] eKLR

    Approved Kitavi v Coastal Bottlers on appellate non-interference with damages awards.

  • Kitavi versus Coastal Bottlers
    [1985] KLR 470

    Appellate court will not disturb damages award unless inordinately high or low, wrong principles, or misapprehension of evidence.

On appeal from
Industrial Court of Kenya at Nairobi (now Employment and Labour Relations Court)
Industrial Court Case No. 165 of 2011
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (Employment and Labour Relations Court appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyandiko v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd", Case Analysis (2017). Civil Appeal 305 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2017/798/eng@2017-05-19

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.