Ambia v KCB Bank Kenya Limited (Cause 283 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1158 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a banker's unfair termination claim, ruling that owning a policy means you're accountable when it's breached—even if a boss approved the exception.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Valid and fair reason for termination
The Respondent proved a valid and fair reason: the Claimant breached the FX Allocation Policy as its owner by originating and effecting an irregular security-pot FX allocation without ALCO approval.
The court found the FX Allocation Policy vested authority to approve exceptions in ALCO, not the Managing Director. As policy owner under Clause 8.5, the Claimant had functional responsibility for implementation and accountability, and should have advised that any exception required ALCO. Although he did not personally approve the allocation, his actions set in motion the breach, giving the employer a valid and fair reason under Sections 43 and 45(2) of the Employment Act.
Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
The process was fair; the Claimant was informed of the allegations, responded, and was heard, satisfying Section 41 of the Employment Act.
The short 24-hour deadline on the show cause letter was mitigated because the Claimant's late response of 9th April 2019 was still considered. Failure to furnish the Forensic Report was not fatal since the Claimant never requested it and its substance was captured in the show cause letter. Failure to inform him of the appeal right was not fatal. The suspension beyond 60 days breached the Respondent's own policy but did not invalidate the process, and no relief was sought on that head.
Suspension exceeding 60 days contrary to the Respondent's policy
The suspension beyond 60 days breached the Respondent's own policy but did not affect the validity of the disciplinary process.
The court found that throughout the disciplinary process the Claimant remained under suspension, exceeding the 60-day cap in the Terms of Service and Reference Guide for Managers, and found the Respondent's explanation that 'the letter' rather than the suspension was lifted illogical. However, since the Claimant sought no relief on this ground and it did not vitiate the process, it did not affect the outcome.
Legal principles established
#- An employer must prove that the reason for termination is valid and fair, and related to the employee's conduct, capacity or compatibility or the employer's operational requirements, under Sections 43(1) and 45(2) of the Employment Act.
- Approval of exceptions to a corporate policy must follow the governance structure prescribed by the policy itself; reliance on approval by an officer without authority does not excuse the employee, particularly the policy owner.
- A claim for loss of earnings to retirement is anticipatory and not payable even where employment was permanent and pensionable.
- An employee is entitled to a Certificate of Service where the employment relationship is not disputed, per Section 51(1) of the Employment Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
- 3.The Respondent shall issue the Claimant with a Certificate of Service within 30 days from the date of the Judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment and labour relations cause before the Employment and Labour Relations Court (no specific provision cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ambia v KCB Bank Kenya Limited (Cause 283 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 1158 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Cause No 283 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1158/eng@2024-04-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.