Republic v African Banking Corporation Limited; Oluchina (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E053 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 825 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court quashed a bank's disciplinary warning because the bank skipped its own HR procedures and punished a minor offence too harshly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent's failure to follow its own Human Resource Manual rendered the disciplinary process and the First Warning Letter unlawful
Yes. The informal disciplinary procedure for minor offences, including preliminary investigation and counselling by the supervisor, was omitted, and a First Warning Letter was issued although the prescribed sanction for a minor offence is a verbal caution or reprimand.
The court examined clauses 15.4 and 15.5 of the HR Manual, which prescribe counselling and an informal procedure for minor offences, with a verbal caution or reprimand as the sanction. The complaint was forwarded directly to HR without the mandatory supervisor-level investigation and counselling stage. The court found the punishment excessive and not provided for in the manual, amounting to breach of mandatory procedure under section 7(2)(b), (c) and (d) of the Fair Administrative Actions Act.
Whether judicial review lies against a private employer's disciplinary process
The court found judicial review merited, holding the disciplinary process reviewable for procedural impropriety under the Fair Administrative Actions Act despite the Respondent's argument that employment disputes belong under the Employment Act.
The Respondent argued that disciplinary action by a private employer is not administrative action and that judicial review is inappropriate, relying on authorities including Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic and Rebecca Ann Maina. The court did not expressly resolve this threshold question but proceeded to find that the Respondent breached the Fair Administrative Actions Act by failing to comply with its own mandatory procedures, concluding the judicial review was merited.
Whether the punishment of a First Warning Letter was proportionate for a minor misconduct-level offence
No. The Respondent's own policy prescribes a verbal caution or reprimand for minor offences; a First Warning Letter was excessive and contrary to the policy.
The Respondent admitted the disciplinary committee found the Applicant guilty of a minor misconduct-level offence. Under clause 15.5 of the HR Manual the prescribed punishment is a verbal caution or reprimand. Issuing a First Warning Letter, the sanction for use of abusive language under clause 15.11 as urged by the Respondent, did not correspond to the classification the Respondent itself applied, making the sanction unwarranted.
Legal principles established
#- An employer is bound by its own disciplinary policies and procedures; failure to follow mandatory internal procedures renders disciplinary action reviewable and unlawful.
- A court or tribunal may review an administrative action where a mandatory and material procedure prescribed by an empowering provision was not complied with, where the action was procedurally unfair, or where it was materially influenced by an error of law.
Court orders
#- 1.Order of certiorari quashing the Respondent's disciplinary proceedings and the resulting First Warning Letter dated 27th August 2024
- 2.Order that no further disciplinary action be taken against the Applicant based on the impugned proceedings, declaring the decision unlawful and procedurally unfair and improper
- 3.Respondents to pay the costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; judicial review under Section 7 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v African Banking Corporation Limited; Oluchina (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E053 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 825 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review application; substantive Notice of Motion dated 3rd September 2024 (Notice of Motion dated 2nd October 2024 referenced). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/825/eng@2025-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.