George James Siro v Credit Bank Limited & another [2018] KEELRC 393 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan bank must pay its former manager over Kshs.1.1 million for unlawful dismissal, but claims of malicious prosecution, defamation and false imprisonment failed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Malicious prosecution
Claim failed; reasonable and probable cause existed as the bank lost money under the plaintiff's watch and he delayed reporting, and malice was not established
The plaintiff had a duty as Branch Manager to safeguard the bank's assets. Internal investigations found him and colleagues culpable, justifying the report to police. The complaint was genuine and based on investigative findings, negating both absence of probable cause and malice. An acquittal under section 210 does not per se establish malice or absence of reasonable and probable cause.
Wrongful arrest and false imprisonment
Claim failed; not distinctly proved and time-barred against the Attorney General
The plaintiff gave scant evidence beyond stating he was arrested. Citing Kyalo v KTDA, distinct causes of action must each be proved distinctly on a balance of probabilities. Further, the suit was filed more than 12 months after release from custody, so the false imprisonment claim against the Attorney General was barred under section 3(1) of the Public Authorities Limitations Act.
Defamation
Claim failed; no proof the words were construed as defamatory by the audience
Defamation requires proof that words tended to lower the plaintiff's reputation or cause him to be shunned, and that they were published and construed as defamatory rather than merely abusive. The plaintiff called no witnesses to testify how the prosecution affected how others viewed him, and cannot be his own witness on the perception of others.
Justification of summary dismissal
Summary dismissal was unlawful as wilful carelessness/negligence was not proved; converted to normal termination with notice
The dismissal was based on alleged wilful carelessness and negligence causing the cash loss, but that was not proved at the hearing. Under the old Employment Act the court could not award unfair termination compensation, but the plaintiff was entitled to unpaid salary for the suspension period, notice pay, and earned leave.
Legal principles established
#- The tort of malicious prosecution requires proof that the prosecution was initiated by the defendant, terminated in the plaintiff's favour, absence of reasonable and probable cause, and malice
- A dismissal letter cannot be backdated; salary is due between suspension and the actual date of dismissal
- Under the repealed Employment Act No. 2 of 1976 employers had no obligation to observe natural justice in terminations and could terminate at will
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the 1st defendant in the total sum of Kshs.1,149,425.70
- 2.Kshs.739,080.00 awarded as salary withheld during suspension
- 3.Kshs.148,319.00 awarded as one month's salary in lieu of notice
- 4.Kshs.262,026.70 awarded for 53 leave days
- 5.Decretal sum to attract interest at court rates from date of filing suit
- 6.1st defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Transferred from the High Court at Kisii by order of Okwany J dated 8th February 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George James Siro v Credit Bank Limited & another [2018] KEELRC 393 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Formerly High Court of Kenya at Kisii Civil Suit No. 56 of 2008. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/393/eng@2018-12-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.