Robert Keter v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2013] KEELRC 739 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan bank clerk fired over cash irregularities lost his unfair dismissal case because the court found his sacking was fair and he caused it himself.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the summary dismissal under the repealed Employment Act (Cap. 226) was wrongful, unfair and unlawful
The termination was fair and lawful and in compliance with the applicable law on summary dismissal under the old law, fairness being assessed through natural justice
The termination occurred on 23rd June 2005 and was therefore governed by the old employment law rather than the Employment Act, 2007. Fairness under that regime was assessed against the rules of natural justice. The claimant was issued several show-cause letters, asked to explain cash shortages and irregular transactions, and given opportunities to respond but issued only denials. The court concluded the dismissal followed fair procedure and lawful cause under section 17(c) and (g) of the repealed Act.
Whether the claimant's conduct was tenable in law
The claimant's misconduct was outrightly unlawful and not tenable in law; he was from the onset not suitable for the job
Having found the termination fair and lawful, the court turned to the claimant's conduct. It found he severally misconducted himself during his tenure, moving from one financial scandal to another, involving cash shortages, misposted deposits and fraudulent deletions of transactions. Such misconduct was characterised as outrightly unlawful, rendering the claimant unsuitable for his employment and answering the second issue against him.
Whether the claimant was entitled to the relief sought
The claimant was not entitled to any relief and should not benefit from his own misdeeds
Because the court found the dismissal lawful and the claimant's conduct untenable, it held that allowing him the relief sought would reward shoddiness and misadventure. The claimant was denied all relief and left the case empty-handed, with costs awarded against him as a caution to careless litigants.
Costs of the suit
Costs were awarded to the respondent, payable by the claimant, the court deploring careless litigation
Noting the matter had been ongoing for three years since May 2011 and that all parties had incurred quantifiable costs, the court stated it must stop careless litigants from littering its corridors with litigation, and awarded costs to the respondent, dismissing the claim with costs.
Legal principles established
#- For terminations occurring under the repealed Employment Act (Cap. 226), issues of fairness are discerned from the process of termination against the rules of natural justice and applicable labour legislation, rather than the more elaborate section 45 of the Employment Act, 2007
- A claimant should not be allowed to benefit from his own mischief and misdeeds where his dismissal is founded on proven misconduct
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed with costs
- 2.The costs of the case to be borne by the claimant and paid to the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Industrial Court of Kenya (established under the former section 11 of the Labour Institutions Act); claim in respect of unfair termination of employment and terminal benefits
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Robert Keter v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2013] KEELRC 739 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Cause No. 809 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2013/739/eng@2013-05-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.