Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 1300 of 2016· [2020] KEELRC 590 (KLR)

Banking Insurance and Finance Union Kenya v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited [2020] KEELRC 590 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
30 July 2020
2,971 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court upheld a bank employee's dismissal for negligence, confirming that documented disciplinary hearings and valid reasons protect employers.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant Union, on behalf of grievant Esther Wanjiku Kiunyu, challenged the termination of her employment by Barclays Bank of Kenya as unfair and unlawful under sections 43, 44 and 45 of the Employment Act. The grievant, a B2 supervisory-level employee at the bank's Thika Branch, had remotely authorised a Kshs.4 Million cash vault transaction for cashier Nicholas Mulei, who fled with Kshs.6,341,541. She sought a declaration that the termination was invalid, reinstatement, notice pay, twelve months' salary as compensation, lost salaries/allowances, leave pay and costs. The Respondent maintained that the grievant unprocedurally authorised the vault transaction despite not being a custodian, admitted this at the disciplinary hearing and appeal, and that her terminal dues were offset against her bank loans. After hearing the grievant (CW1) and the Respondent's Head of Employee Relations (RW1) and considering submissions, the court framed three issues: validity of the reasons for termination, fairness of the disciplinary process, and entitlement to remedies. The court found that the disciplinary minutes showed the grievant failed to follow cash handling procedure, that there were valid reasons to warrant termination for negligence, and that the grievant was afforded a fair disciplinary process and was not condemned unheard. The court consequently found the claim without merit and dismissed it, with no order of costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether there were valid reasons for the grievant's termination

Holding

Yes - the grievant failed to follow cash handling procedure by authorising vault transactions she was not supposed to authorise.

Reasoning

The court examined the termination letter, the grievant's testimony and the disciplinary minutes. The grievant admitted in the disciplinary process that she was not supposed to authorise from the vault and that what she did was not the norm. The investigation report showed lapses in controls, but the evidence showed the Claimant failed to follow process in authorising the Kshs.4 Million.

p. 4
02

Whether the grievant was accorded a fair disciplinary process

Holding

Yes - minutes were produced and there was no indication she was condemned unheard.

Reasoning

The court noted the disciplinary process minutes were produced in evidence, the grievant was invited to the hearing, made representations, and was afforded a right of appeal which she exercised, albeit unsuccessfully. Nothing indicated she was condemned unheard.

p. 4
03

Whether the Claimant is entitled to the remedies sought

Holding

No - the claim fails on the substantive issues.

Reasoning

Having found valid reasons and fair procedure, the court concluded the claim lacked merit. Reinstatement was also no longer tenable as more than three years had lapsed. Terminal dues, notice pay and leave had been paid and used to offset bank loans.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An employer must show valid and fair reasons for termination under sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
  • Loss of earnings as damages for termination is capped at the equivalent of 12 months' gross wages (as submitted by the Respondent).

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the claim
  2. 2.No order of costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and the Employment Act (first-instance reference filed as Cause No. 1300 of 2016)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Banking Insurance and Finance Union Kenya v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited [2020] KEELRC 590 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No. 1300 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/590/eng@2020-07-30

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