Kaleli v Kingdom Bank (Cause 1621 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 2588 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a bank unfairly sacked its branch manager without proof of wrongdoing or a hearing, but awarded only four months' salary.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent proved valid reasons for the summary dismissal
No valid reasons were proved; the Respondent did not establish that the Claimant was responsible for approving the credit facilities or introducing fraudulent accounts as alleged in the dismissal letter
The dismissal letter accused the Claimant of introducing fraudulent accounts and of breaching credit policy by irregularly approving facilities under his supervision. However, RW1 conceded that the Claimant's duties did not include approval of credit, and the Respondent produced no audit or investigation report linking the Claimant to the exposure. The exposure arose from unsecured credit and cheque accommodation approved at Head Office.
Whether the Respondent accorded the Claimant fair procedure under section 41 of the Employment Act
No; the Claimant was never informed of the charges or given an opportunity to defend himself before dismissal
The Claimant was summoned to Head Office ostensibly on other business, kept waiting, and handed a dismissal letter on the spot. When he asked for reasons he was referred to the appeal clause in the letter. RW1, while insisting the dismissal was procedurally fair, admitted there was no hearing before dismissal.
Whether the Claimant's alleged constitutional violations warranted constitutional remedies
No; the statutory employment framework provides sufficient remedies and recourse to the Constitution was unnecessary
The court reiterated that rights regulated by private law should not be elevated to the constitutional pedestal where statutory provisions provide sufficient remedy, and held that the Claimant's contractual and statutory rights under employment legislation were adequate for the remedies he sought.
What remedies flow from the finding of unfair termination
Compensation of 4 months' gross salary under section 49 of the Employment Act; the unproved special and general damages claims were dismissed
The court considered the Claimant's length of service, the circumstances of dismissal and the relevant factors under section 49(4), awarding Ksh. 680,000. The claimed 132 months' salary, allowances, commissions, general damages for loss of legitimate expectation and punitive damages were all unproved and were dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to be fair there must be both substantive justification (valid reason) and procedural fairness
- An employer bears the burden of justifying the grounds for termination, and must inform the employee of the charges and accord a hearing before dismissal
- Employment rights regulated by private law should not be elevated to the constitutional pedestal where statutory provisions provide sufficient remedy
- Where an employer fails to prove valid grounds and denies the employee a hearing, the dismissal is unfair under section 45(2) of the Employment Act
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration/holding that the dismissal of the Claimant was unfair in terms of section 45(2) of the Employment Act
- 2.Compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act at the rate of 4 months gross salary, being Ksh. 680,000 (Ksh. 170,000 x 4)
- 3.Dismissal of the prayers for special damages (basic salary and allowances for the unexpired term, commissions) for lack of proof
- 4.Dismissal of the prayers for general damages for breach and loss of legitimate expectation and punitive damages for embarrassment, stress and psychological torture for lack of proof
- 5.Respondent to pay the Claimant's costs of the suit
- 6.Interest at court rates from the date of Judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (unfair termination and wrongful dismissal complaint under sections 41, 43, 45 and 47)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kaleli v Kingdom Bank (Cause 1621 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 2588 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No 1621 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2588/eng@2023-10-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.