Munyori v Bank of Africa Limited (Cause 1447 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 2889 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a bank fairly dismissed a negligent employee but unfairly, awarding her five months' salary because she wasn't given a proper hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substantive justification for termination
The Respondent had a valid and fair reason - the claimant's want of care in processing the Swift message
The claimant admitted mistaking USD 6,000,000 for 6 million South African Rands and credited Dubai Bank without confirming details. Given the amount and her seniority in the Treasury Back Office since 2009, the employer was entitled to expect vigilance. Applying the employer's genuine belief test under Section 43(2) and the band of reasonableness, the court found reasonable grounds to believe her conduct demonstrated want of care.
Procedural fairness
The dismissal was procedurally unfair - two days to prepare and denial of the investigation and audit reports
The notice to show cause issued on 18th September 2015 with hearing on 21st September gave the claimant only two days for serious allegations. She was suspended to pave way for investigations yet the investigation report was never availed or filed in court, impeding her defence. The respondent thus failed to discharge its burden under Sections 45(2) and 47(5), rendering the summary dismissal unfair for want of procedural propriety.
Compensation quantum
Equivalent of 5 months' salary awarded
The court considered the 10 years of service, promotions and clean disciplinary record, but found the claimant substantially contributed to the termination through her own negligence, warranting reduction from the 12 months sought to 5 months' salary under Section 49(1)(c).
Counterclaim
Dismissed for want of proof of the outstanding balance
The respondent pleaded an outstanding debt of Kshs.664,079.21 but did not produce the mortgage account statements showing how the balance arose after the claimant paid Kshs.6.1 million; RWIII admitted having no evidence of the loan account. The counterclaim therefore failed for want of documentary proof.
Legal principles established
#- A valid and fair reason plus a fair procedure are both required for a fair termination under Section 45 of the Employment Act
- An employee must be accorded sufficient time to prepare for a disciplinary hearing and be supplied with documents the decision maker will rely on
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Claimant against the Respondent in the equivalent of 5 months' salary
- 2.Costs of the suit to the Claimant
- 3.Interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
- 4.All other prayers declined
- 5.Counterclaim dismissed for want of proof
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 and the Labour Relations Act over unfair termination of employment claims
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.
- Mary Immaculate Wachira v Bank of Africa Limited[2026] KEELRC 2706 (KLR)1 Oct 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munyori v Bank of Africa Limited (Cause 1447 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 2889 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause E243 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/2889/eng@2023-11-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.