Wambui v Standard Chartered Bank of Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 383 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1495 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan bank must pay a former branch manager Kshs. 3.1 million because it fired her over misconduct it never actually proved.
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 Respondent unfairly terminated the Claimant from her employment
- 2.If (a) above is in the affirmative, whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Statement of Claim
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the suit?
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was substantively unfair
The termination was unfair because the Respondent did not prove the alleged personal dealings with Mr. Thuita or that the Claimant kept Kshs.1,500,000/= for him; the investigation report focused on Mr. Thuita, not the Claimant, and the claim of a personal connection was unsubstantiated.
The court applied sections 43(1), 45 and 47(5) of the Employment Act. The allegation that the client left withdrawn money with the Claimant was expressly a deduction and presumption in the Respondent's own letter. No evidence directly or indirectly connected the Claimant to irregular dealings, no witness including the client testified at the disciplinary hearing, and the DCI investigation revealed no relationship. A valid reason was therefore not established.
Admissibility of CCTV photographs without a Section 106B certificate
The court noted the absence of a certificate accompanying the CCTV evidence but the determinative finding was the failure of substantive justification, and the electronic evidence objection was raised late after documents were admitted without objection.
The court recited the requirements of Section 106B of the Evidence Act and noted no certificate accompanied the investigation report/photographs. It relied on Dry Associates, holding there is no time limit for raising the certificate issue. The Respondent argued the objection was an afterthought since documents were admitted without objection at pre-trial and hearing. The ultimate outcome rested on failure to prove a valid reason rather than exclusion of the evidence.
Whether the termination was discriminatory
Discrimination was not established; the alleged non-existence of clause 4.1 of the Conflict of Interest Policy was explained as a photocopying omission and no comparator or discriminatory reason was shown.
The Claimant relied on Ol Pejeta Ranching Ltd v David Wanjau Muhoro seeking damages for discrimination, contending she was terminated under a non-existent clause 4.1. The Respondent explained the missing page was a photocopying error. The court held the law on proof of discrimination requires comparison with other employees and proof of the reason for discrimination, neither of which was demonstrated.
Reliefs payable on finding of unfair termination
One month's notice pay, 8 months' compensation under Section 49(1)(c), and pay in lieu of 20 untaken leave days were awarded; bonus, reinstatement, harassment and discrimination damages were refused.
Having found unfair termination, the court exercised its discretion under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act to award 8 of the possible 12 months' gross salary as compensation. Notice pay of Kshs.320,000/= was awarded since the Claimant was not paid on exit. Leave pay was awarded because the Respondent did not prove the leave had been granted. The discretionary bonus failed for want of proof.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of justifying the grounds for termination rests on the employer; where the employer fails to adduce evidence connecting the employee to the alleged misconduct, the termination is unfair.
- Fairness of termination requires both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
Court orders
#- 1.One month's notice pay of Kshs.320,000/= awarded to the Claimant
- 2.Compensation for unfair termination under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act of 8 months' salary, i.e. Kshs.2,560,000/= (320,000 x 8)
- 3.Pay in lieu of 20 leave days awarded at Kshs.266,666/=
- 4.Claim for 2018 bonus pay declined for failure of proof
- 5.Total award of Kshs.3,146,666/= plus interest at 14% per annum from date of judgment until payment
- 6.Reinstatement refused as overtaken by events
- 7.Damages for harassment and discrimination refused as not proved
- 8.Costs awarded to the Claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment and labour relations cause under the Employment Act before the Employment and Labour Relations Court (specific enabling provision not cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Reinstatement to her previous position without loss of benefits
Overtaken by events
Damages for harassment and discrimination
Not proved; no comparison of who she was discriminated against or reasons for discrimination
2018 bonus pay
Claimant did not prove the claim
Costs
Costs are awarded to the Claimant.
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.
It is obvious that the Claimant was terminated based on her alleged personal dealing with Mr. Thuita, which were not proven as no concrete evident was adduced to directly or indirectly connect irregular dealings by the Claimant with the said client.
The Honourable Court is of the view that the Claimant was unfairly terminated from her employment on grounds of gross misconduct which were not proven. The Respondent did not establish valid reason for terminating the Claimant.
For a termination of employment to pass the fairness test, there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
In fact in the letter it states “Our only deduction from this transaction the client left the money he had withdrawn with you.” This was a deduction and was also a presumption that only the Claimant dealt with that client.
The Claimant is awarded total of Kshs.3,146,666/= plus interest at 14% per annum from date of judgment till payment.
Costs are awarded to the Claimant.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency on the amount allegedly kept by the Claimant: Kshs.3,000,000/= versus Kshs.1,500,000/= and Kshs.2,000,000/= appear in different accounts of the same transactions
Discrepancy in the date of the second transaction: the pleading describes CCTV footage of 22nd May 2018 while the Respondent's submissions refer to events of 2nd May 2018 and 11th May 2019
Suspension date inconsistency: the Statement of Claim paragraph and evidence refer to a suspension letter dated 9th August 2018 while the memorandum of reply avers suspension on 13th August 2018
Disciplinary hearing date inconsistency: memorandum of reply says the hearing was scheduled for 27th August 2018 while the Claimant's submissions and evidence say it was scheduled for 24th August 2018 and held on 30th August 2018
The case title, case number and neutral citation do not appear in the provided judgment text; party names are not stated (the Claimant is referred to only as Miss Wambui)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wambui v Standard Chartered Bank of Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 383 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1495 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1495/eng@2025-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.