Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment text provided· [2025] KEELRC 1125 (KLR)

Maina v ABSA Bank Kenya PLC (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E1059 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1125 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
26 March 2025
DMD. K. Njagi Marete
2,474 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court upheld Absa Bank's firing of a sales officer for misconduct, confirming that a proper disciplinary process protects employers.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by Absa Bank Kenya as a Bancassurance Sales Officer on a commission-based contract, challenged his termination on 8th May 2021 for gross misconduct. The allegations were that he paid Kshs.8,000 to a colleague, Augustine King'oku, as a kickback for sales referrals, deleted a fellow officer's sales code, and solicited leads from unauthorised branches. He denied the allegations, maintaining the payment was a medical fundraiser contribution, and contended that the disciplinary and appeal hearings denied him cross-examination of witnesses, access to investigation reports, and a fair hearing, contrary to Articles 10, 27, 47 and 50 of the Constitution, the Fair Administrative Action Act and Sections 41, 43, 45 and 47(5) of the Employment Act. He also alleged discriminatory enforcement, claiming colleagues escaped discipline. He sought declarations, twelve months' compensation, notice pay, underpayments, leave pay, house allowance, bonus, service pay and general and exemplary damages. The Respondent maintained that the termination followed a whistle-blower report, forensic investigation, show-cause letter, disciplinary hearing and appeal, all in compliance with Section 41 of the Employment Act, and that partial settlement via mediation resolved notice pay and leave days. The court found that the Claimant was taken through appropriate disciplinary proceedings, was found culpable, and that the culpability was upheld on appeal, amounting to lawful termination. The claim was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the termination for gross misconduct

Holding

The termination was lawful; the Claimant was culpable of workplace misconduct and due process was followed.

Reasoning

The court accepted the Respondent's account of a whistle-blower report, forensic investigation, show-cause letter, suspension, disciplinary hearing and appeal. The Claimant's explanations regarding the Kshs.8,000 payment and the deleted sales code did not displace the findings of misconduct. The court preferred the Respondent's evidence over the Claimant's and concluded the disciplinary process was appropriate.

p. 6
02

Costs

Holding

The claim was dismissed with no order as to costs; each party to bear their own costs.

Reasoning

Despite the Respondent seeking costs under Section 12(4) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, the court exercised discretion to order each party to bear their own costs upon dismissing the claim.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An employee taken through appropriate disciplinary proceedings and found culpable, with culpability upheld on appeal, is lawfully terminated.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the claim
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 10, 25, 27, 28, 41(1), 47, 50(1), 50(2)
  • Fair Administrative Action ActNo. 4 of 2015; Section 4
  • Employment Act, 2007Sections 4, 5, 31(1), 35(5), 41, 43, 44(3), 45, 45(2)(a)(b), 45(3), 47(5), 49(1)(c)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12(4)

Cases cited (16)

  • National Bank of Kenya v Samuel Nguru Mutonya
    [2019] eKLR
  • Postal Corporation of Kenya v Andrew K. Tanui
    [2019] eKLR
  • Kenya Revenue Authority v Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi & 2 others
    [2019] eKLR
  • Wilson Khasakhala Maganga v Menengai Oil Refineries Ltd
    [2015] eKLR
  • Barclays Bank of Kenya v Gladys Muthoni
    [2018] eKLR
  • Ol Pejeta Ranching Ltd v David Wanjau Muhoro
    [2017] eKLR
  • VMK v Catholic University
    [2013] eKLR
  • Little Africa Kenya Ltd v Andrew Mwiti
    [2011]
  • Trevar Marambe v For You Chinese Restaurant
    [2021] eKLR
  • Charles Munuve v Safaricom PLC
    [2021] eKLR
  • Galgalo Jarso Jillo v Agricultural Finance Corporation
    [2021] eKLR
  • Naima Khamis v Oxford University Press
    [2017] eKLR
  • Kenya Chemical Workers Union v Bamburi Cement
    [2013] eKLR
  • Next Generation Communication Ltd v George Kirungaru
    [2019] eKLR
  • Kenya Broadcasting Corporation v Geofirey Wakio
    [2019] eKLR
  • DK Njagi Marete v TSC
    [2020] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (Section 12(4) invoked on costs); Employment Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maina v ABSA Bank Kenya PLC (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E1059 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1125 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1125/eng@2025-03-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.