Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause E… of 2021 (Memorandum of Claim dated 11th January, 2021, filed 8th February, 2021)· [2025] KEELRC 1694 (KLR)

Njuki v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited (Cause E096 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1694 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
12 June 2025
CBC. N. Baari
4,046 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ruled a bank rightly dismissed a manager over transaction errors, even though the money was recovered.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent bank in 2016 and promoted to Manager, Global Operations in 2018, was summarily dismissed on 22nd May, 2020 after she validated two SWIFT transactions with incorrect amounts (overpayments of USD 80,000 and USD 8,000) and delayed raising risk events by 9 and 6 days after discovering the errors. The funds were eventually recovered. She claimed the dismissal was unfair and sought a declaration, compensation of Kshs. 2,904,000.24 (12 months' gross salary), costs and interest. The Respondent contended there were valid reasons - negligence, breach of SWIFT procedures and delayed escalation - and that fair procedure was followed, including a show cause letter, a disciplinary hearing on 8th May, 2020 attended with a colleague, and a right of appeal which the Claimant did not exercise. The Court framed two issues: whether the termination was unfair, and whether remedies were due. It found procedural fairness satisfied under Section 41 of the Employment Act, noting the notifications, hearing, representations and unexercised appeal right. On substance, the Court held the reasons valid and fair: the Claimant admitted the errors and delays, Section 44(4)(c) treats careless performance as grounds for summary dismissal, and banking demands high integrity and accountability. It held recovery of the money immaterial, as exposure to risk suffices. The claim was dismissed in its entirety with no orders as to costs. Judgment delivered on 12th June, 2025 by C. N. Baari, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedural fairness of the termination

Holding

The termination was procedurally fair as the Claimant was notified, heard, and informed of appeal rights

Reasoning

The Claimant received a disciplinary hearing notification form dated 6th May, 2020 stating the infractions, attended the hearing of 8th May, 2020 accompanied by a colleague of her choice, made representations, and was informed of her right of appeal under Clause 34.4 (d) 1 of the HR Policy but chose not to exercise it. The Court found these satisfied Section 41 of the Employment Act.

p. 6
02

Substantive fairness of the termination

Holding

The reasons for termination were valid, fair and justified; negligence and delayed escalation of risk events constituted misconduct justifying summary dismissal

Reasoning

The Claimant admitted validating incorrect amounts of USD 199,982 instead of USD 119,882 and USD 29,301.18 instead of USD 21,301.18, and delaying raising risk events by 9 and 6 days. Section 44(4)(c) treats careless and improper performance of duties as ground for summary dismissal. The Court applied the reasonable employer test and a bank manager's heightened accountability, holding recovery of funds immaterial.

p. 8
03

Entitlement to remedies

Holding

No remedies were due since the termination was fair

Reasoning

Having found both procedural and substantive fairness, the Court held the prayer for compensation for unfair termination moot and dismissed the entire claim, with no orders as to costs. The burden-shifting under Section 47(5) was met by the employer justifying the reasons for termination.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • For a termination to be fair, the employer must satisfy both procedural fairness and substantive justification
  • Exposure to risk of loss, even without actual loss materialising, can justify summary dismissal in banking; negligence in performance of duties is a ground for summary dismissal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Claim dismissed in its entirety with no orders as to costs
  2. 2.It is so ordered

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment Act, 2007Section 41
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 43(2)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 44(3)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 44(4)(c)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 45(1) and (2)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 47(5)
  • Employment Act, 2007Section 49(1)(c)
  • Kingdom Bank Human Resource Management manual/policyClause 34.4 (d) 1

Cases cited (6)

  • Ogweno Vs Karanja & another
    (cause 1136 of 2018) [2023] KEELRC 2683 (KLR)
  • Julius Bii Kipyegon Bati & Another vs Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    [2020] eKLR
  • Moses Koech Kibiwott Vs Kingdom Bank Limited
    [2022] eKLR
  • Pius Masafu Isundu v Lavington Security Guards Limited
    [2017] eKLR
  • British Leyland v Swift
    (1981) IRLR 91
  • Mwangi v ABSA Bank Kenya PLC
    (Cause E065 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 2399 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes under the Employment Act, 2007

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njuki v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited (Cause E096 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1694 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause E… of 2021 (Memorandum of Claim dated 11th January, 2021, filed 8th February, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1694/eng@2025-06-12

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