Geoffrey Sadat Otana v Equity Bank Limited
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed an employee who skips a disciplinary hearing can't later claim unfair dismissal, even if criminal charges against him collapse.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether notification of a disciplinary hearing must be in writing to satisfy section 41(1) of the Employment Act
Written notification is not mandatory; a telephone call summoning the employee to a disciplinary hearing suffices, and the appellant gave no evidence of prejudice.
The court read section 41(1) as requiring that the employee be notified of the reasons for termination, but not prescribing form. The appellant relied on paragraph 17.4.14 of the respondent's Policy Manual, but the court found the Manual has no clause 17.4.14; the relevant sub-clause 17.4.3 only requires that the employee be advised of charges and heard. The appellant was phoned and invited, and declined to attend, so notice was sufficient.
Whether pending criminal proceedings bar internal disciplinary proceedings on the same facts
No. The two processes are distinct, with different standards of proof, and an acquittal does not debar an employer from disciplinary action.
Relying on State of Karnataka v Umesh and Teachers Service Commission v Kenya Union of Teachers, the court held that a disciplinary enquiry tests misconduct on a preponderance of probabilities whereas a criminal trial requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, so an employee cannot decline a disciplinary hearing on the ground that criminal proceedings are on-going.
Consequences of an employee's failure to attend a disciplinary hearing
By wilfully declining to attend, the appellant frustrated the disciplinary process and locked himself out of procedural fairness safeguards; the dismissal cannot be attacked as procedurally unfair.
The court found the appellant was summoned and chose not to appear, citing the criminal case as an excuse. Following Old Mutual v Gumbi and the reasoning of the trial court, an employer's obligation is only to afford an opportunity to be heard; if the employee fails to take it, the dismissal cannot be challenged on procedural unfairness. His sensitive role as custodian of funds heightened his duty to explain the loss.
Legal principles established
#- The law does not require notification of a disciplinary hearing to be in writing; what matters is that the employee is notified.
- Pending criminal proceedings are not a bar to an employer commencing internal disciplinary proceedings on the same facts.
- An employee who declines an offered opportunity to be heard at a disciplinary hearing cannot later challenge dismissal as procedurally unfair.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
- 2.Judgment of the ELRC at Mombasa (Ndolo, J.) delivered on 30th July 2020 upheld
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal under rule 31(1)(a) of this Court's Rules, 2022 (Court of Appeal Rules, 2022)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Koeth v Majlis Manda Island Resort Limited (Cause E009 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2988 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2988 (KLR)30 Oct 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Geoffrey Sadat Otana v Equity Bank Limited", Case Analysis (). Appeal from Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa (not stated in excerpt). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1324/eng@2025-07-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.