Michael Njoroge v Barclays Bank Limited & another [2021] KEELRC 492 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed a former bank teller's claims, ruling his dismissal was fair because banks can demand higher integrity from staff.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Claimant has proved unfair termination against the Respondents
- 2.Whether the Claimant has proved malicious prosecution against the Respondents
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the orders sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the Claimant's employment was procedurally fair
The termination was procedurally fair; the minutes showed the Claimant received an invitation letter and was given an opportunity to state his case.
Although no copy of the invitation letter was produced, the disciplinary proceedings disclosed that the Claimant received one, as he himself referred to the invitation letter in his remarks before the committee. The minutes show he acknowledged knowing why he was there and was invited to tell the panel what he knew. He also attended with a fellow employee as representative and later appealed the termination.
Whether there was a valid reason for termination under Section 43 of the Employment Act
There was a valid reason: an investigation report linked the Claimant to a syndicate planning to rob the bank, and the tip-off proved accurate when the robbery attempt occurred.
The employer, a commercial bank handling clients' money, is entitled to demand higher integrity from staff. The informer's information was corroborated by the attempted robbery in which robbers gained access to the branch and were shot by police. The investigation named the Claimant among bank staff leaking information to the gang, giving the bank a genuine and reasonable belief justifying loss of trust.
Whether the Claimant proved malicious prosecution
The claim failed; the prosecution was instituted on reasonable and probable cause and without malice.
The elements of malicious prosecution require instituting proceedings, absence of reasonable and probable cause, malice, and termination in the plaintiff's favour. The complaint to police by the bank was based on a tip-off proved accurate, and police ascertained the truth before acting. The Claimant adduced no evidence of spite, ill-will or improper motive; he did not even know the police officers involved.
Legal principles established
#- A bank is entitled to demand a higher level of integrity from its employees and may terminate employment where it validly and reasonably doubts an employee's integrity.
- Acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings is not, per se, sufficient basis for a claim of malicious prosecution; malice in fact must be proved.
Court orders
#- 1.The entire claim fails and is dismissed
- 2.No orders for costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (claim for unfair termination and malicious prosecution arising from employment)
Relief refused
#General damages for malicious prosecution
Claimant failed to prove malice, ill-will or improper motive
12 months' salary as damages for unfair termination, contractual benefits, certificate of service and special damages
Termination was both substantively and procedurally fair
Costs
There shall be no orders for costs (each party to bear their own costs).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The result is that the entire claim fails and is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no orders for costs.
In view of the fact that a bank handles lots of money which belong to its clients, a higher level of integrity is demanded of bank employees.
I find that the Claimant has not proved the element of malicious prosecution. There is no evidence of malice by either the 1 st of 2nd Respondent's officers who were involved in the case.
The police in this matter had reasonable and probable cause to believe that the Claimant had committed the offence.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in dates regarding the attempted robbery: information received and gang approach dated October 2011 in one passage but October 2012 elsewhere
Misnumbered paragraph (paragraph '2' following paragraph 11) and typographical errors in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Michael Njoroge v Barclays Bank Limited & another [2021] KEELRC 492 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause (plaint dated 3rd December 2014) - Employment and Labour Relations Court claim. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/492/eng@2021-11-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.