Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as supplied· [2024] KEELRC 82 (KLR)

Nehondo v Bank of Africa Group Limited (Cause E1032 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 82 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
31 January 2024
JRJames Rika
2,926 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court upheld a bank employee's dismissal because the employer followed proper disciplinary process and the employee admitted breaking banking procedures.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent Bank from 12th June 2009 and last serving as Branch Customer Service Manager, Kisii Branch, on a monthly salary of Kshs 120,000, claimed that his termination on 16th April 2021 was unfair, malicious and contrary to natural justice, Sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act, and the Respondent's Human Resource Manual. He sought a declaration of unfair termination, 12 months' compensation (Kshs 1,440,000), severance pay of Kshs 720,000, aggravated damages of Kshs 7,200,000 for reputational and career loss, Provident Fund dues, confirmation of statutory remittances, costs, and a proper certificate of service. The Respondent maintained that the Claimant neglected operational procedures, breached KYC and accounts-opening guidelines in opening school accounts funded by NG-CDF, kept client cheques unbanked beyond 21 days, and failed to seek compliance approval for high-risk accounts. It followed due process: a show-cause letter, the Claimant's reply with concessions, a disciplinary hearing attended with a colleague of his choice, a reasoned termination letter, terminal dues of Kshs 264,123, and a reasoned appeal determination. The Court framed three issues: fairness of procedure, validity of reasons, and merits of remedies. It found the procedure conformed with Sections 41 and 45 and that the Respondent justified termination under Sections 43 and 47(5), relying on the Claimant's own admissions and those of his colleague James Ondere. All prayers were declined. The claim was dismissed with no order on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedural fairness of termination under Section 41 Employment Act

Holding

Termination was procedurally fair; show-cause letter issued, reply considered, hearing held with a colleague present, and appeal heard and determined with reasons

Reasoning

The Respondent issued a show-cause letter detailing the allegations, the Claimant replied and conceded several charges, was invited to a disciplinary hearing with the right to be accompanied, attended and made concessions, was issued reasons for termination, offered terminal dues, and was given an appeal which the Managing Director determined with reasons. Sections 41 and 45 were satisfied.

p. 6
02

Valid reason for termination under Sections 43 and 47(5)

Holding

The Respondent established valid reasons: admitted lapses in KYC compliance, unbanked cheques, erratic documentation and failure to seek compliance approval

Reasoning

The Claimant conceded in his reply to the show-cause letter, at the disciplinary hearing, and in court, that he breached banking policies and procedures. His colleague James Ondere agreed lapses occurred. The burden under Section 47(5) was therefore discharged by the Respondent through established and admitted grounds.

p. 6
03

Compensation and other remedies

Holding

All monetary and declaratory remedies declined for want of merit and evidential support

Reasoning

Having found termination lawful and fair, the declaration and 12 months' compensation failed. Severance pay required redundancy; damages for reputational and psychological harm and loss of employability lacked evidential foundation; Provident Fund dues and statutory deductions were unproven; and the certificate of service had already issued under Section 51.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Severance pay under Section 40 of the Employment Act applies only where termination is through redundancy.
  • An employee subscribed to N.S.S.F. is not eligible for service pay under Section 35(6) of the Employment Act.
  • Section 51 of the Employment Act requires only a certificate of service, not a reference or one 'befitting the status' of the employee.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Claim is declined
  2. 2.No order on the costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under the Employment Act; not expressly stated in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nehondo v Bank of Africa Group Limited (Cause E1032 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 82 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment as supplied. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/82/eng@2024-01-31

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.