Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2019] KEELRC 2350 (KLR)

Banking Insurance Finance Union (K) v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd [2019] KEELRC 2350 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
8 February 2019
2,654 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan bank lawfully dismissed a loans officer for lending money to a customer at high interest, because the dismissal followed proper legal procedure.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant union sued on behalf of its member, Daniel Kenyani Iladiva, a loans officer summarily dismissed by the Respondent bank on 13th January 2014 after a disciplinary hearing, alleging unfair and unlawful summary dismissal. The Claimant sought reinstatement, unpaid salaries and allowances, 12 months' gross salary compensation, damages of Kshs.1,500,000, and one month's pay in lieu of notice. The Respondent maintained that the grievant was engaged in shylocking — lending Kshs.85,000 to a bank customer, Isaack K. Njihia, at a pre-determined return of Kshs.21,250 per fortnight for three months — under a written agreement produced in evidence, contrary to his employment terms prohibiting borrowing or lending of money without the Managing Director's written consent, and in conflict with his role marketing the bank's loan products. The court framed two issues: whether the termination was unfair and unlawful, and whether the reliefs sought were available. On the reason for termination, the court found the grievant's position fiduciary, held that lending to a customer at almost 50% interest posed a serious conflict of interest, and concluded the Respondent proved its reason. On process, the court found the Respondent complied with section 41 of the Employment Act: show cause letter, response considered, disciplinary hearing attended with a colleague of the grievant's choice, dismissal, and a considered appeal. The dismissal was held fair, lawful and justified. All reliefs were refused, the claim was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent had valid and justifiable reason to summarily dismiss the grievant

Holding

Yes — the grievant engaged in lending money to a bank customer at almost 50% interest without consent, contrary to his terms of employment and the Business Code of Conduct and Ethics

Reasoning

The grievant's letter of appointment strictly prohibited borrowing and lending of money without the Managing Director's written consent. As a loans officer marketing the bank's loan products, lending money to a customer at high interest during working hours using the bank's facilities posed a serious conflict of interest. The court found the Respondent proved its reason for termination.

p. 4
02

Whether the Respondent accorded the grievant due process under section 41 of the Employment Act and Clause A5 of the CBA

Holding

Yes — the grievant was issued a show cause letter, responded, was heard at a disciplinary hearing accompanied by a colleague of his choice, and his appeal was considered

Reasoning

Section 41 requires an employer to explain the reasons for termination and to hear and consider the employee's representations. The Respondent issued a show cause letter, found the response unsatisfactory, convened a disciplinary hearing at which the grievant was accompanied by a unionisable member of staff, and dismissed him after considering his case. His appeal was also declined on its merits.

p. 4
03

Whether the grievant is entitled to reinstatement, compensation, notice pay or terminal dues

Holding

No — having found the dismissal fair and lawful, none of the reliefs sought are available

Reasoning

Reinstatement is not available where the dismissal was lawful and fair. Terminal dues were paid upon dismissal, and compensation and pay in lieu of notice are remedies for unfair termination. The Respondent also averred that breach of trust made reinstatement impractical.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee engaged in a fiduciary position based on trust and good faith breaches his employment terms by lending money to a customer without written consent, creating a conflict of interest that constitutes valid reason for summary dismissal
  • Compliance with section 41 of the Employment Act — show cause letter, response, disciplinary hearing with an accompaniment of the employee's choice, and appeal — constitutes a fair hearing and due process

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsection 41
  • Employment Actsection 42(1)
  • Employment Actsection 44(3) and (4)
  • Capital Markets Authority Actsection 3(1)

Cases cited (7)

  • Mary Chemweno Kiptui vs. Kenya Pipeline Company
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenfreight (E.A.) Limited and Benson K. Nguti
    [2016] eKLR
  • Bamburi Cement Limited vs. William Kilonzi
    [2016] eKLR
  • Sotik Highlands Tea Estates Limited vs. Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Union
    [2017] eKLR
  • Thomas Sila Nzivo vs. Bamburi Cement Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Peter Otieno Opollo vs. Board of Governors Kisumu Polytechnic College & Another
    [2013] eKLR
  • George Kariuki Ngugi & 2 Others vs. Brolaz East Africa Limited
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the referenced dispute following a certificate of unresolved dispute

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Banking Insurance Finance Union (K) v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd [2019] KEELRC 2350 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2350/eng@2019-02-08

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