Chaudhary v NCBA Bank Limited (Cause E050 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1930 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled NCBA Bank unfairly fired a long-serving manager because it couldn't prove a valid reason, awarding him nearly Kshs 3.7 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination followed a fair procedure under Section 41 of the Employment Act
Procedure was fair - the Claimant was investigated, given opportunity to explain, heard by a disciplinary panel, and the panel composition did not prejudice him
The allegations were investigated, the Claimant gave explanations on several dates, a report was generated, charges were restated in the hearing invitation, he was accompanied by a colleague, and he raised no protest about the change of panellists. Failure to advise on the right of appeal was not significant given his seniority and familiarity with the HR Policy. Procedure met the minimum standards of fairness.
Whether termination was founded on valid reason under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
No valid reason was established - the Claimant could not reasonably be held liable for release of bills of lading that were released by an Assistant and in any event paid
The procedure entrusted release of documents to the Trade Services Assistant, not the Manager. The Respondent's own witness conceded pre-endorsement was not barred, that the Claimant endorsed only 2 of 73 bills, and that other Managers who endorsed more were not dismissed. Both implicated bills were honoured before the disciplinary hearing. Termination was therefore unfair for want of valid reasons.
Whether the Claimant merits the remedies sought
Reinstatement, severance pay, general damages, career damages and loan discount refused; 12 months' salary compensation and 17 days' annual leave pay granted
Reinstatement was barred by lapse of the 3-year period and the Claimant's advanced working years. Severance and loan discount depended on redundancy or VEP exit which did not occur. General damages for pain and suffering were misplaced in an employment claim, and career damages were unsupported. Annual leave pay was due because termination was effective immediately with no notice period, and 12 months' compensation was merited given his clean record and difficulty securing alternative employment.
Legal principles established
#- Failure to remind an employee of his right of appeal, where the employee is a Manager familiar with the Human Resource Policy, is not a significant procedural breach
- An employee cannot be held liable for acts (release of documents) that were the statutory/procedural responsibility of another officer, where payment was in any event received
Court orders
#- 1.It is declared that termination of the Claimant's contract was unfair and unlawful
- 2.The Respondent shall pay to the Claimant annual leave at Kshs 166,208 and equivalent of 12 months' salary in compensation for unfair termination, at Kshs 3,519,708 – total Kshs 3,685,916
- 3.Costs to the Claimant
- 4.Interest allowed at court rate, from the date of Judgment, till payment is made in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, 2007 (Sections 41, 43 and 45)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chaudhary v NCBA Bank Limited (Cause E050 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 1930 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the extract provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1930/eng@2024-07-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.