Gibendi v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited (Cause 273 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 1210 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a bank unfairly sacked its branch manager, awarding him maximum compensation of 12 months' salary for a hasty, unfair disciplinary process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substantive fairness of the termination
Termination was substantively unfair - no misconduct was proved
The claimant filled in the G9 form for a client, but no rule, regulation or policy prohibited an employee from doing so, and the claimant did not sign or forge the form. The client and valuer settled the valuation fee dispute, and the client was in any event ineligible for a loan. The court found no misconduct was established and the reason for termination was not justified.
Procedural fairness of the termination
Procedural fairness was denied
The claimant was suspended before the complaint was received, given under 24 hours' notice of the disciplinary hearing, denied the CCTV footage he requested, not named the complaining client, and subjected to a further hearing on 14 July 2017 with no notice or minutes. These breaches of natural justice rendered the procedure unfair.
Compensation for unfair termination under section 49(4)
Maximum compensation of 12 months' gross salary awarded
The court considered the claimant's inability to find work in the closely-knit banking industry, absence of contributory fault, and the respondent's hasty and prejudicial process, awarding the maximum 12 months' gross salary as compensation under section 49(4) of the Employment Act.
The counter-claim on the personal loan
Counter-claim allowed at Kshs.1,264,960/= as pleaded, payable at the agreed staff preferential rate per schedule, set off against the claimant's award
The claimant admittedly owed a loan balance. Since the unfair termination cut short his employment and ability to service the loan, the court limited the debt to the balance pleaded, at the agreed staff rate, without further interest, and ordered set-off against the award.
Alleged discrimination and unfair labour practices
Not proved
Applying the Anarita Karimi and Mumo Matemu principles, the court found the two junior employees acted on the claimant's instructions in honest belief, and the claimant as branch manager bore responsibility; no discrimination was established and no additional compensation beyond the s.49 award was warranted.
Legal principles established
#- An employee must be given adequate time, ordinarily at least seven clear days, to prepare for a disciplinary hearing, irrespective of whether the employee complains about short notice
- An employer should not take drastic disciplinary action such as termination before concluding investigations or without conclusive evidence
- Minor errors or infractions by employees should ordinarily be met with warnings rather than termination
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant by the Respondent was unfair and unlawful
- 2.The Claimant awarded Kshs.3,286,380.82 (one month's salary in lieu of notice Kshs.33,437.00; balance in regard to prayers (1) to (6) excluding prayer (5) Kshs.132,943.82; compensation for unfair and unlawful termination Kshs.3,120,000.00)
- 3.The Respondent to notify the CRB within seven days of the judgment of the settlement so that the Claimant's name is delisted
- 4.The Claimant awarded costs of the cause
- 5.All the other claims denied
- 6.Judgment entered for the Respondent on the counter-claim in the sum of Kshs.1,264,960/=, to be set off against the award, with the Respondent liable to pay the difference
- 7.Each party to meet own costs for the counter-claim
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and the Constitution (Article 47, Fair Administrative Action Act 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.
- Warren Enterprises Ltd v Oyido[2026] KEELRC 2484 (KLR)22 Sept 2026followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gibendi v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited (Cause 273 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 1210 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 273 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1210/eng@2023-05-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.