Zamzam v Gulf African Bank Limited (Cause E006 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 165 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled a bank unfairly changed an employee's job and failed to protect him from an abusive customer, awarding Ksh.1 million and preserving his staff-rate mortgage.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the reasons for termination
The court found there were justified grounds relating to the claimant's conduct towards customer B on 7 September 2021, breaching the bank's Customer First values and section 44(4)(c) of the Employment Act
The claimant, aware of the customer-centric values of a highly regulated banking sector, denied a customer an unoccupied chair in anticipation of another customer, contrary to what a reasonable employee ought to have done. He knew customer B was hot-tempered and had mocked him at the mosque, yet permitted the background conflict to surface at work, violating the bank's tenets and values.
Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
The court found the disciplinary process complied with section 41 as the claimant was notified of his right to be accompanied and opted to attend alone
The claimant was invited to the disciplinary hearing, reminded of his right to attend with another employee, acknowledged the right and chose to participate alone. He made representations at the hearing. The court therefore found no procedural breach on this head, distinguishing the claimant's allegations from the four elements in Oyombe v Eco Bank.
Unilateral change of employment terms
The respondent's reassignment of the claimant from Treasury Sales Officer to Officer, Customer Experience without consultation breached sections 10(5) and 41(1) of the Employment Act
The employment letter was for Treasury Sales Officer; there was no letter of reassignment. Sanctioning an employee for alleged poor performance and changing his position suo motto without due process is contrary to section 41. This fundamental flaw contributed to the events of 7 September 2021.
Employer's duty to protect employees from customers
The respondent failed in its duty to protect the claimant from an agitated customer, amounting to unfair labour practices under article 41
While the employer pursued customer-oriented service, employees on the shop floor also have rights, including protection from angry customers. The respondent swept the issue under the carpet, and the claimant's rights at work were violated by both the employer and third parties, contrary to the Supreme Court's exposition in Kenya Ports Authority v Munyao.
Mortgage facility tied to employment
The loan facility cannot be severed from the employment relationship; the claimant shall continue servicing the mortgage at staff rate
Following Mulinge v Cooperative Bank and Jackson Ngovi v County Assembly of Makueni, the court held that rights accruing in employment, including a mortgage facility, are secured upon unfair termination. The claimant legitimately expected to repay the loan from his salary lost through unfair labour practices.
Legal principles established
#- An employer on the shop floor has a duty to protect employees from harassment and mistreatment by customers; allowing every customer to harass employees to retain them would defeat fair labour practices
- Before reassigning an employee to new duties on grounds of poor performance, the employer must consult the employee and obtain written approval, per section 10(5) and section 41 of the Employment Act
- Unfair labour practices encompass all conduct prior to, during and after termination of employment under article 41, per the Supreme Court in Kenya Ports Authority v Munyao
Court orders
#- 1.A finding that there were violations of the claimant's constitutional rights to fair labour practices
- 2.General damages awarded at Ksh.1,000,000
- 3.An order that the claimant shall continue to service his mortgage repayments at staff rate unless otherwise brought forward for early repayment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 41 of the Constitution and the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; the court also relied on its earlier ruling of 28 July 2022 on jurisdiction over the mortgage dispute tied to employment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Zamzam v Gulf African Bank Limited (Cause E006 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 165 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/165/eng@2025-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.