Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause Number 1063 of 2012· [2014] KEELRC 236 (KLR)

Evans Ochieng Nudih v Equity Bank Limited [2014] KEELRC 236 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
18 September 2014
4,026 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled Equity Bank had good reason to fire an employee, but the dismissal was still unfair because he was never given a chance to be heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by Equity Bank Limited as Credit Officer, Group Lending from 17th November 2008, was summarily dismissed on 27th June 2011 after complaints from supervisors at Kericho and Hola branches and from women customers (Uzuri and Maisha Bora Women Groups) alleging rudeness, abusive language and insubordination. He claimed damages for unfair and unlawful termination, one month's salary in lieu of notice, service pay and costs, having forgone reinstatement. The Respondent maintained the dismissal was fair, citing grave unprofessional conduct. The Court, Rika J, held there was valid and fair reason for dismissal: the cumulative complaints established incompatibility, and the Claimant had been cautioned and had undertaken in writing to improve, satisfying Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act 2007 on substance. However, the procedure was unfair: Wamwati conceded the Claimant was never heard before dismissal, contrary to the Respondent's own Human Resource Manual and Sections 41 and 45 of the Act, and the Respondent failed to prove delivery of the dismissal letter. The Court distinguished unfair from unlawful/wrongful termination, adopting the dichotomy but holding the pleadings permitted compensation for unfair termination. The Claim was allowed in part: three months' gross salary as compensation for procedural unfairness and one month's basic salary in notice pay were awarded. Service pay was declined for want of proof. No order was made on costs and interest. Judgment dated and delivered at Nairobi on 18th September 2014.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of reason for summary dismissal

Holding

There was valid and fair reason for dismissal - the Claimant's incompatibility, arrogance, uncooperativeness and insubordination

Reasoning

The Court found a chain of occurrences from Kericho to Hola showing persistent complaints about the Claimant's conduct: refusing to wear a tie, denigrating superiors, rude e-mails, offensive language to women's group customers. He was cautioned and undertook to reform, but the relationship irreparably broke down. The Court adopted the incompatibility jurisprudence, holding the Respondent satisfied Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act 2007 on substance.

p. 6
02

Fairness of dismissal procedure

Holding

The procedure was unfair because the Claimant was not heard prior to dismissal

Reasoning

The Claimant was not given a hearing before the decision to dismiss was made, contrary to the Respondent's own Human Resource Manual and Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act 2007. Wamwati conceded the Claimant was not heard. The Respondent also failed to prove it delivered the letter of summary dismissal to the Claimant. Compensation of three months' gross salary was awarded for procedural unfairness.

p. 6
03

Service pay claim

Holding

The service pay claim failed for lack of proof of entitlement

Reasoning

The Claimant provided no material showing the basis for the service pay claim. The contract and HR policy made no provision for it, and no collective agreement or wage instrument was cited that would justify service pay under Section 35 of the Employment Act. The prayer was declined.

p. 6
04

Distinction between unfair and unlawful/wrongful termination

Holding

The Court agreed the two concepts are distinct but held that the Claimant's pleadings invoking procedural fairness and remedies allowed it to award compensation for unfair termination

Reasoning

Relying on the Otieno and Akuti Awards, the Court accepted the Respondent's submission on the dichotomy between unfair and wrongful/unlawful termination. However, because the Claimant had pleaded remedies such as reinstatement and questioned the manner of termination - traditional elements of unfair termination - the Court could consider compensation for unfair termination rather than damages for unlawful termination.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Incompatibility of an employee with the workplace is a fair reason for termination of employment
  • An employer must demonstrate irreparable breakdown of the employment relationship and that the employee was corrected, counseled and given time to mend before dismissing on incompatibility
  • Failure to hear an employee prior to dismissal renders the procedure unfair, contrary to Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act 2007
  • 'Unfair' and 'wrongful or unlawful' termination are distinctive concepts

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Termination was declared unfair on account of procedure
  2. 2.The Claimant is granted 3 months' gross salary at the rate applicable as of 27th June 2011
  3. 3.The Claimant shall be paid 1 month basic salary in notice pay at the rate applicable on 27th June 2011
  4. 4.No order on the costs and interest

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act 2007Sections 35, 41, 43, 45, 49
  • Labour Institutions Act 2007Sections 12 and 15
  • Equity Bank Human Resource Manual (Code of Conduct and Core Values)

Cases cited (4)

  • Dede Esi Annie Amanor-Wilks v. Actionaid International
    Cause No. 635 of 2010 [2014] e-KLR
  • Wright v. St. Mary’s Hospital
    1992 [ILJ] 987 IC
  • Jane Florence Otieno v. the Insurance Regulatory Authority
    Cause No. 719 of 2010 [UR]
  • George Onyango Akuti v. G4S Security Services Limited
    Cause No. 107 of 2013 [2013] e-KLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 12 and 15 of the Labour Institutions Act 2007; Employment Act 2007

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.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Evans Ochieng Nudih v Equity Bank Limited [2014] KEELRC 236 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Cause Number 1063 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/236/eng@2014-09-18

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