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 1755 of 2014· [2020] KEELRC 1246 (KLR)

Nyangiry Okambaga Bwonditi v Ecobank (K) Limited [2020] KEELRC 1246 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nairobi
13 March 2020
3,772 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled that a senior banker's refusal to undergo a mandatory performance appraisal justified his summary dismissal without notice pay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The claimant, formerly Executive Director and Head of Domestic Bank for Kenya and EAC Cluster at Ecobank (K) Limited, sued for a declaration that his summary dismissal on 31st March 2014 was unfair and unlawful, reinstatement, compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act, and payment of Kshs. 5,639,250 as three months' salary in lieu of notice. He argued no disciplinary hearing was convened and that his placement on a Performance Improvement Plan breached his contract. The respondent maintained the dismissal was for consistently poor performance, refusal to undergo the mandatory performance appraisal process, and insubordination; it asserted that the claimant was issued Notices to Show Cause, replied in writing, was invited to an oral hearing on 31st March 2014 which he chose not to attend, and was heard by the Board. The court, applying sections 44, 45 and 47(5) of the Employment Act, held that the claimant's admitted refusal to submit to performance appraisal — mandatory in banking as a CBK requirement — was a valid and fair reason for termination based on his conduct and the respondent's operational requirements. Fair procedure was found to have been followed. Since summary dismissal was justified, no notice or pay in lieu was necessary. The court dismissed the entire claim with costs. Notably, the judgment inconsistently states that an order for reinstatement would be appropriate despite dismissing the claim; the final order is dismissal with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity and fairness of the reason for termination

Holding

The claimant's refusal to submit to performance appraisal was a valid and fair reason related to his conduct and the respondent's operational requirements.

Reasoning

Both parties acknowledged that performance appraisal was important, particularly in banking where the Central Bank required appraisal of senior managers. The claimant refused appraisal from the MD citing a relationship breakdown, and refused the Board's offer as its members were his peers. The refusal created an awkward relationship and risked the bank failing a CBK regulatory requirement, which the court held amounted to a fair reason grounded in conduct and operational requirements.

p. 5
02

Fairness of the termination procedure

Holding

A fair procedure was followed: notices to show cause were issued, the claimant replied, and an oral hearing was offered.

Reasoning

The court reviewed the documents filed by both parties and was persuaded that fair procedure was followed. The claimant received two Notices to Show Cause, responded in writing to both, and was invited to an oral hearing on 31st March 2014, which he chose not to attend. The Board also considered his appeal and representations.

p. 5
03

Entitlement to notice pay and summary dismissal under section 44

Holding

Since a valid ground for termination existed, summary dismissal was justified and no notice or pay in lieu was necessary.

Reasoning

The claimant was summarily dismissed under section 44 of the Employment Act, which permits termination without notice or with less notice where justified. Having found a valid ground, the court held that the Kshs. 5,639,250 paid as an 'ex gratia' payment was perhaps reflective of the fact that no notice pay was contractually due.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee's refusal to submit to a mandatory performance appraisal, required by the regulator, constitutes a fair reason for termination based on conduct standing in the way of the employer's operational requirements.
  • Where a valid ground exists for summary dismissal under section 44 of the Employment Act, no notice or pay in lieu of notice is necessary.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is found without merit and is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Actsections 41, 44, 45, 47(5), 49
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Employment and Labour Relations Court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyangiry Okambaga Bwonditi v Ecobank (K) Limited [2020] KEELRC 1246 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No 1755 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1246/eng@2020-03-13

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