Wang v Equity Bank (Cause E945 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 3187 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled a bank unfairly fired an executive, holding dismissal must be proportionate and employers must prove employees were actually conflicted.
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 reasons for which the claimant was dismissed from employment were valid and justifiable
- 2.Whether the process of dismissal was fair
- 3.If the claimant is successful, what are the appropriate remedies
Key legal issues
#Validity of the reason for termination (conflict of interest)
The conflict-of-interest reason was invalid because the transaction occurred when the claimant was not an employee and the respondent failed to show how he became conflicted.
It was common ground that the guarantorship transaction took place in September 2019, after the claimant had resigned and before his re-employment in September 2020. The Code of Conduct clause relied on binds 'any member of staff', and the claimant was not a member of staff at the material time. The respondent therefore bore, but did not discharge, the burden of demonstrating how the claimant became conflicted in a pre-employment transaction.
Validity of the reason for termination (sharing confidential information)
The inquiry to Mr. Chen Chong, a director of a customer within the claimant's portfolio, could not be construed as unauthorized disclosure of confidential information absent evidence of inappropriate use.
The claimant was Group Head of Chinese Business Coverage and Eris was in his portfolio. He sought clarification from the company's director about a loan application the director said he was unaware of, out of caution about possible fraud. Without evidence of inappropriate use of the information, the communication was within his responsibility and not a breach of confidentiality.
Proportionality of the sanction of dismissal
Termination was disproportionate and unreasonable; lesser disciplinary measures would have sufficed, rendering the dismissal unfair.
The respondent did not demonstrate reputational jeopardy or risk of loss from the alleged infractions. Even if the conduct breached the code of regulations, milder sanctions such as warnings or surcharge were available. Dismissal as the first and ultimate sanction was disproportionate and therefore unfair.
Assessment of remedies
The court awarded one month's salary in lieu of notice and four months' salary as compensation, having regard to the claimant's one year of service and the one-month termination clause.
The claimant served about a year on a permanent and pensionable contract with a one-month notice termination clause. Considering the short duration, the possibility of natural end of contract, and his juniority in any restructuring, four months' salary was deemed adequate compensation in addition to notice pay.
Legal principles established
#- Reasons for termination need not be strictly proved but must be reasonable and proportional in the circumstances.
- Not all workplace infractions attract dismissal; lesser disciplinary measures may be appropriate and termination must be proportionate.
Court orders
#- 1.One month's salary in lieu of notice of USD 16,000
- 2.Four months' salary as compensation of USD 64,000
- 3.Costs of the suit to the claimant
- 4.Interest at court rates on items (i) and (ii) from date of delivery until payment in full, subject to taxes and statutory deductions where applicable
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment Act; unfair termination claim under a statement of claim filed in the ELRC)
Relief refused
#Reinstatement to previous position without loss of benefits and payment of ½ withheld salary during suspension
Not granted; the court instead awarded notice pay and compensation
Damages for defamation
No finding or award on defamation; relief not pursued in the judgment
Alternative claim of Kshs. 31,188,400/-
Not awarded; the court substituted its own quantified award in USD
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the claimant.
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.
It is the Court's view that in terminating the claimant's service based on the allegations against him, the respondent acted disproportionately and unreasonably hence unfair.
There was therefore an obligation on the part of the respondent to demonstrate more than it did, how the claimant became confiicted in a transaction that took place prior to joining the respondent's employment.
Reason for termination of employment need not be strictly proved but must however be reasonable and proportional in the circumstances.
In conclusion the Court enters judgment against the respondent as follows.
One month's salary in lieu of notice 16,000
Costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states the statement of claim was filed on 17th November 2021 but also refers to it being filed on 8th June 2022
Judgment refers to the respondent's witness as Mr. Wyclifi Ontumbi (RW1) at trial but later attributes evidence to 'the respondent's witness Ms. Olaka'
Opening recitals refer to the claimant in the feminine ('her statement of claim') while the balance of the judgment uses the masculine
First employment date given variously as 27th August 2013 in the pleadings and 22nd October, 2013 in CW1's evidence
Second re-employment date given as 10th September 2020 in pleadings and evidence but '1st November, 2020' in the show cause letter narrative
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.
- Mkalo v Githunguri Dairy Farmers Cooperative Society Limited (Appeal E024 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2693 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2693 (KLR)3 Oct 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wang v Equity Bank (Cause E945 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 3187 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment as extracted. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3187/eng@2023-12-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.