Sande v NCBA Bank Kenya PLC (Cause 269 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 808 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld NCBA Bank's dismissal of an employee who received Ksh 129,650 in undisclosed gifts from vendors she paid, ruling the termination lawful.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substantive justification for termination
Termination was justified because the claimant admitted receiving Ksh 129,650 from service providers and failed to disclose gifts over Ksh 8,000 as required by the policy
The court found the claimant conversant with the Group Human Resources Management Policy requiring disclosure of gifts above Ksh 8,000. She admitted receiving over Ksh 10,000 on single instances totalling Ksh 129,650 from taxi service vendors whose invoices she processed, amounting to a conflict of interest and breach of policy. Her defence that other employees did the same was rejected. Vendor statements corroborated the transfers.
Whether receipt of unsolicited friendly transfers excused non-disclosure
No; the policy applied to direct and indirect receipt of gifts of monetary value regardless of the claimant's characterization of the transfers as friendly tokens
The court accepted that receiving gifts from customers was an accepted practice, but the policy conditioned receipt of gifts valued above Ksh 8,000 on disclosure to the line manager. The claimant's own appeal response admitted at least five instances exceeding Ksh 8,000, including Ksh 10,000 from Noah Karanja while on leave. Non-disclosure breached the policy and, given her role processing vendor payments, constituted a conflict of interest.
Procedural fairness
The disciplinary process was fair; the claimant was notified, attended with a representative, responded, and exercised a right of appeal
The court found no breach of constitutional rights to a fair hearing. The claimant was invited to the disciplinary hearing by notice dated March 19, 2018, attended with her representative, gave her responses, was informed of the right to appeal which was heard and dismissed, and was paid all salaries for the entire period to termination on September 11, 2018.
Legal principles established
#- An employee who deliberately breaches the employer's policy cannot avoid sanction, including summary dismissal under Section 44(3) of the Employment Act
- Non-disclosure of gifts exceeding the value prescribed in an employer's policy by an employee dealing with the gifting vendors constitutes a fundamental breach justifying termination
- An employee cannot justify their own breach of policy on the ground that other employees received gifts without disclosing
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is found without merit and is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Sections 43, 44(3) and 45 applied); no constitutional article invoked
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Musumba v NCBA Bank Kenya Plc (Cause E030 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 634 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 634 (KLR)28 Feb 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sande v NCBA Bank Kenya PLC (Cause 269 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 808 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 269 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/808/eng@2023-03-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.