Kabue v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E6593 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 2271 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Claimant's employment was unlawfully and unfairly terminated
- 2.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
- 3.Whether the counterclaim is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the dismissal was substantively justified
The dismissal was substantively justified because the internal audit revealed fraudulent transactions and conflict of interest which the claimant failed to disprove.
The notice to show cause dated 8 November 2018 stated the allegations arising from an internal audit, including payment of third party cheques without consulting her supervisor, exposure of the respondent to overdrawing of Kshs 34,291,303.26 on the Magereza Sacco account, and a scheme to inflate purchase prices and divert staff loans. She claimed the conveyancing signatures were forged but did not prove she reported forgery, which is a criminal offence.
Whether the dismissal procedure was fair under section 41 of the Employment Act
Procedure was fair: the claimant was given notice of charges, the documents relied on, the right to be accompanied, an opportunity to be heard and to appeal.
The claimant was invited to disciplinary hearings by letters dated 27/11/2018 and 15/1/2019 stating the charges per the NTSC, with the documents relied upon. The signed minutes showed she chose to attend unaccompanied, defended herself, and could appeal the panel's decision. The twin test of substantive justification and procedural fairness in Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission was therefore satisfied.
Whether the counterclaim for exemplary damages of kshs 10,617,000 was merited
That limb of the counterclaim was denied for want of proof.
The respondent did not demonstrate how the claimant was liable for the claimed amount and the court found it difficult to make a generalised award of such a large sum without supporting evidence. The loan claim of kshs 3,602,003.94 was not disputed; the court directed disposal of the securities and a settlement plan within 90 days.
Legal principles established
#- For termination to pass the fairness test there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the claim for unlawful and wrongful termination
- 2.Loan of kshs 3,602,003.94 to be discharged through disposal of the securities (motor vehicles and LR No Mavoko Town Block 3/7939 & 47940) with parties agreeing on the dues after disposal
- 3.Parties to come up with a settlement plan of any outstanding amounts within 90 days; mention on 18/12/2024 for a progress report
- 4.Denial of the exemplary damages of kshs 10,617,000
- 5.Each party to meet their respective costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act, Cap 226
Relief refused
#Exemplary damages of kshs 10,617,000
The respondent did not prove the claimant's liability and a generalised award could not be made without support.
Costs
Each party to meet their respective costs of the suit.
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.
for termination to pass the fairness test it ought to be shown that there was not only substantive justification for the termination but also procedural fairness.
hence the court finds the respondent had a valid reason to terminate the claimant summarily
The claim for unlawful and wrongful termination is therefore not proved and the same is dismissed accordingly.
That limb of counterclaim is therefore denied.
Court orders that each party to meet their respective costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states the claimant tendered a resignation dated 15th January 2019 in one passage and 18/1/2019 in another.
The court refers to 'affidavits and submissions' but the judgment records that neither party filed submissions.
The court uses a woman pronoun for the respondent in one passage ('he had a valid reason').
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.
- Kenyanya v Nyangena Hospital Ltd (Appeal E034 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1278 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1278 (KLR)5 May 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kabue v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E6593 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 2271 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2271/eng@2024-09-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.