Kamsa v KCB Bank Limited (Cause E005 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 740 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a banker's claim that his KCB dismissal was void and discriminatory, ruling unequal treatment is not discrimination unless arbitrary.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination letter signed by the Branch Manager was void for want of authority
The termination was not a nullity; the Claimant produced no document showing who was authorised to issue termination letters, and the entire disciplinary process was conducted at branch level by the Branch Manager without objection.
The Court noted that discipline was commenced at the Branch with internal memos from the Cash Manager, the Branch Manager signed memos to which the Claimant responded without questioning, and the disciplinary hearing invitation was issued by the Branch Manager. Having adduced no evidence establishing the appointing authority, the Claimant failed to lay any basis for the nullity allegation.
Whether the termination was discriminatory compared to the treatment of Evans Masika and other colleagues
The termination was not discriminatory; the Respondent gave four non-arbitrary, reasonable and objective justifications for treating the Claimant differently, showing he was much more culpable.
Relying on the definitions of discrimination in Peter K. Waweru v Republic and Mohammed Abduba Dida v Debate Media Limited, the Court held that mere difference in treatment is not discrimination unless arbitrary. The Claimant passed 12 cheques paid out by colleagues, paid a post-dated cheque contrary to the Cashier's Guide, acted outside his job description as a Credit Administrator, and produced no documentary evidence of consulting the co-signatory, unlike Masika and the East Branch employees.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to reinstatement and compensation
No. Reinstatement was unavailable because the termination was not shown to be unfair under sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act, and the three-year statutory window for reinstatement lapsed in April 2022 before the claim could yield such an order.
The Court found the Claimant did not deny acting contrary to the Bank's regulations and the 'both-to-sign' account mandate. Since the termination was not found unfair on statutory grounds and the three years from the 15th April 2019 termination lapsed in April 2022, the reinstatement power could not be exercised even if the letter had been a nullity. The whole claim was therefore dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- Not all differentiation in treatment amounts to discrimination; the differentiation must be shown to be unreasonable or arbitrary.
- A party alleging that the person who signed a termination letter lacked authority must lay an evidentiary basis for that allegation; otherwise the letter is not a nullity.
- The right to reinstatement is only available where termination is found unfair on grounds stated in sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act, and the court's reinstatement power must be exercised within three years of termination.
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act (termination of employment claim; reinstatement power under sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act referenced)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamsa v KCB Bank Limited (Cause E005 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 740 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Employment and Labour Relations Cause (Eldoret) - Memorandum of Claim dated 15th January 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/740/eng@2025-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.