Frederick Kariuki Kamau v Bank of India [2015] KEELRC 1070 (KLR)

The Respondent's letter of 2nd June 2010 expressly rejected the resignation and dismissed the Claimant summarily under section 44 of the Employment Act. The court found no legal basis for denying terminal benefits on the strength of a rejected resignation, and found credible the Claimant's evidence that he was denied the opportunity to work. The two-week interval showed the Respondent had means and policy to address alleged misconduct but instead dismissed without hearing.

The employer suspected the Claimant of involvement in cheque fraud, but the Claimant and the Respondent's own witness showed the cheques passed UV light, system signature and supervisory checks. The investigation report confirmed the Claimant passed the cheques at payment point and supervisors counter-signed them. The forged cheques were printed on paper stolen from the cheque printer, and other cashiers who paid more cheques were not charged. The dismissal without a hearing and without valid grounds was unfair and equivalent to unfair labour practice.

A party alleging discrimination must outline the circumstances and show how those circumstances create discrimination. Here all employees, including Ms Osoro and Mr Allan Mburu, gave statements during investigations. The Claimant was not singled out at the investigation stage; his grievance lay in the dismissal without due process and without valid reasons, which the court addressed under unfair termination rather than discrimination.

The cause of action arose in 2010 when the Employment Act capped remedies under section 49. Considering years served and circumstances, 12 months' compensation was adequate. Notice pay followed the contract's one-month termination clause and sections 35 and 36. Gratuity, payable on 21 or more years of service, could not be denied on lapsed caution letters. Medical allowances were speculative and double pay; legal fees for the criminal trial had no linkage to the Respondent.