Timothy v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd (Cause E448 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2253 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed a bank employee's sacking was justified, but ordered the bank to pay three months' salary for denying him documents needed to defend himself.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Valid and fair reason for termination
The Respondent proved on a balance of probabilities that the Claimant was negligent in performing KYC for the three USSD resets linked to deceased customers' accounts, providing a fair and valid reason for termination.
The Claimant did not deny performing the USSD resets. Audit trails showed the resets were done by his username; CCTV showed no customers present; signatures did not match; and a burial permit confirmed the account holder was deceased. The court found the resets set in motion the fraud that enabled PIN resets and withdrawals, establishing negligence.
Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
The process was procedurally unfair because the Respondent failed to furnish the Claimant with documents and evidence he had requested for his defence ahead of the disciplinary hearing.
The Claimant requested logs, complete CCTV footage, the deceased's flagging checklist and the users who reset the PINs. There was no evidence the Respondent acted on the request or gave plausible reasons for refusal. Relying on Rebecca Ann Maina v JKUAT, the court held the employee is entitled to employer-held documents assisting his defence, and the omission impaired his right to a fair hearing.
The Counterclaim for outstanding staff loans
The Counterclaim was proved, but only in the sum of Kshs 5,746,645.26 as tabulated from the exhibited loan statements, not the Kshs 5,814,131.51 claimed.
The Respondent exhibited loan application forms and statements; the tabulated total was Kshs 5,746,645.26. The Claimant admitted only Kshs 4,000,000 but adduced no evidence to discount the Respondent's figures. His complaint about alteration of interest rates failed because the termination letter gave 30 days' notice that staff facilities would attract prevailing commercial rates.
Legal principles established
#- An employee facing disciplinary proceedings is entitled to documents in the possession of the employer which would assist in preparing a defence; failure to furnish requested exculpatory material impairs the right to a fair hearing and renders the process procedurally unfair.
- An employer bears the burden under Section 45(2)(c) of the Employment Act of proving that termination followed a fair process, including notification of allegations and an opportunity to respond under Section 41.
- Even where a valid reason exists, a defective disciplinary process yields only partial relief, here compensatory damages of three months' gross salary.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment was procedurally unfair
- 2.The Claimant's claim against the Respondent is allowed and he is awarded compensatory damages in the sum of Kshs 387,377.55, being equivalent to three (3) months of his gross salary
- 3.Interest shall apply on the amount in (b) at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 4.The Respondent's Counterclaim against the Claimant is allowed in the sum of Kshs 5,746,645.26
- 5.Interest in (d) shall apply at the prevailing market rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- 6.As the Claim and Counterclaim have both succeeded, there will be no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court under the Employment Act and the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (not expressly cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Timothy v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd (Cause E448 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2253 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E448 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2253/eng@2025-07-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.