Jyoti Sharma Aluanga v Prime Bank Limited [2018] KEELRC 1752 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled Prime Bank unfairly dismissed an employee because it couldn't prove she committed the fraud it accused her of, awarding her over Kshs 730,000.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
The disciplinary process met the statutory minimum under section 41 of the Employment Act; the Claimant was notified in advance of the allegations and afforded an opportunity to make representations while accompanied.
The suspension letter and the hearing invitation letter both disclosed the suspected fraudulent transactions, and the invitation advised of the right to be accompanied. The employer need not hold a mini-court; oral or written notice with sufficient detail suffices, and the employee may respond orally or in writing. The Claimant never requested further particulars and opted not to make tangible representations at the brief hearing.
Substantive fairness - whether the reasons for dismissal were valid and proved
The Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving valid reasons; the dismissal was not for valid reasons or fair.
The dismissal letter cited breach of the code of ethics, secrecy declaration and section 44(4)(c) & (g) of the Act. The evidence showed the consultant Kamau had the technical knowledge to delete system logs and had made unauthorised system access, whereas the Respondent did not demonstrate the Claimant had such knowledge. The telephone communications between the Claimant and Kamau were too tenuous to establish complicity or remissness in duty.
Remedies for unfair dismissal
Compensation equivalent of 5 months gross salary (Kshs 456,465/-) and pay in lieu of notice per clause 16 of the contract (Kshs 273,879/-) awarded; service pay refused.
Considering about 5 years of service, the Court assessed compensation at 5 months gross salary based on the separation gross salary of Kshs 91,293/-. Clause 16 of the contract provided 3 months written notice or pay in lieu, which was awarded. Service pay was excluded because the Claimant contributed to NSSF and a pension fund.
Legal principles established
#- Section 41 of the Employment Act does not require an employer to hold a mini-court; the employer must inform the employee of the allegations with sufficient detail and afford an opportunity to respond, orally or in writing, accompanied by a colleague.
- Under sections 43, 45 and 47 of the Employment Act, the employer bears the burden of proving that the reasons for dismissal existed and were valid, fair and justifiable.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the dismissal of the Claimant from employment was unfair
- 2.Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation of Kshs 456,465/- (equivalent of 5 months gross salary at Kshs 91,293/-)
- 3.Respondent to pay the Claimant pay in lieu of notice of Kshs 273,879/- (3 months on basis of basic/gross pay of Kshs 91,293/-)
- 4.Total award of Kshs 730,344/-
- 5.Claimant to have costs of the Cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (first-instance employment cause)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jyoti Sharma Aluanga v Prime Bank Limited [2018] KEELRC 1752 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause (not stated in judgment; Employment and Labour Relations Court Cause instituted 22 January 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1752/eng@2018-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.