Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedStatement of Claim dated 20th September 2013· [2014] KEELRC 279 (KLR)

Banking, Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya) v Transnational Bank Ltd [2014] KEELRC 279 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations Court)
19 September 2014
1,827 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan bank lawfully dismissed an employee for borrowing from a customer, but the court ordered her terminal benefits after reclassifying the dismissal as ordinary termination.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant union, on behalf of Grievant Pamela Kiptanui, sought reinstatement, pecuniary loss, or alternatively 12 months' salary as compensation for what it alleged was a wrongful, unlawful and unfair summary dismissal from the Respondent Bank. The Grievant was dismissed following allegations that she borrowed Kshs.130,000/= from a bank customer, Robert Sang t/a Tegat Enterprises, contrary to the Bank's Human Resources Policy and her contract, and engaged in an outside firewood business without management authority. The Grievant initially denied, then admitted, the borrowing in her appeal letter. The Court framed three issues: valid reason, fair procedure, and remedies. On the first, it found the employer had proved dismissible offences on a balance of probabilities under Sections 47(5) and 45(2)(a) of the Employment Act 2007. On procedure, it held the Grievant received a show cause letter, responded, and was heard by a disciplinary committee; her failure to bring a union representative was her own omission since the employer's duty to allow time arises only on request. Significantly, the Court found, contrary to both parties' positions, that the separation letter disclosed a normal termination with terminal benefits, not a summary dismissal. The Court therefore reduced the summary dismissal to a normal termination, ordered the Respondent to compute and pay CBA terminal benefits within 30 days, applicable to offset any outstanding loan, with the computation filed in Court. The claim for reinstatement and compensation failed, and the Respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the suit as the claim was partly successful.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination was for a valid reason

Holding

Yes - the Grievant admitted borrowing Kshs.130,000/= from a customer and engaging in an outside business without authority, both dismissible offences under the Human Resources Policy and her contract

Reasoning

The Court perused the Human Resource Policy and the contract of employment and found employees prohibited from borrowing from customers and from outside business without management authority. The Grievant expressly admitted the borrowing and the firewood business, and the customer's loan to the Bank fell into arrears as a direct consequence. The employer thus discharged its burden under Sections 47(5) and 45(2)(a) of the Employment Act on a balance of probabilities.

p. 4
02

Whether the termination followed a fair procedure

Holding

Yes - the Grievant was given a show cause letter, responded, appeared before a disciplinary committee, and did not request a union representative or postponement

Reasoning

Fair procedure under Article 47 of the Constitution and Section 41 of the Employment Act was met: the Grievant received a show cause letter, replied in writing, was notified to appear before the disciplinary committee, and was heard. Her failure to bring a union representative was of her own making; the employer's duty to allow time arises only where the employee requests it or seeks a postponement, neither of which occurred.

p. 4
03

Characterisation of the separation - summary dismissal or normal termination

Holding

The letter of 28th January 2011 disclosed a normal termination with terminal benefits, not a summary dismissal

Reasoning

Contrary to both parties' framing, the separation letter stated the Grievant was entitled to one month's salary in lieu of notice, salary for days worked and accrued leave, subject to offsetting loans. The Court therefore recharacterised the separation as a normal termination, with the CBA (Clause A5) governing the notice period and benefits payable.

p. 3
04

Remedies

Holding

Only CBA terminal benefits for a normal termination were awarded; reinstatement and compensation for unfair dismissal were refused

Reasoning

Having found a valid reason and fair procedure, and having recharacterised the separation as a normal termination, the Court directed the Respondent to compute and pay CBA terminal benefits within 30 days, applicable to offset any outstanding loan, with the computation filed in Court within 30 days. Costs were awarded to the Claimant as the claim was partly successful.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Whether separation is a summary dismissal or a normal termination is determined by the letter of separation and the entitlement to terminal benefits therein
  • An employee has the obligation to bring a representative of choice to a disciplinary hearing; it is not the employer's obligation, and postponement must be requested by the employee
  • An employer with a valid reason must still follow fair procedure under Article 47 of the Constitution read with Section 41 of the Employment Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Terminal benefits in terms of the CBA be computed by the Respondent and paid within 30 days of the judgment and/or be applied to off-set any outstanding loan owed to the Respondent by the Grievant
  2. 2.The computation of terminal benefits be filed with the Court within 30 days from the date of the judgment
  3. 3.The Respondent to pay the costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Industrial Court ActSection 12
  • Employment Act 2007Section 44(3)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 45(2)(a)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 45(2)(c)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 47(5)
  • Employment Act 2007Section 41
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 47
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 12 of the Industrial Court Act No. 20 of 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Banking, Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya) v Transnational Bank Ltd [2014] KEELRC 279 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Statement of Claim dated 20th September 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/279/eng@2014-09-19

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