Ngotho v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited (Cause E462 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2304 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
The Court was satisfied the Claimant proved a prima facie case, as she impugned both the substance and procedure of her dismissal, requiring interrogation of Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act at the hearing of the main suit.
The Claimant denied complicity in or benefit from the fraud, contended the fraud predated her posting to the PQM department, and alleged she was given less than 48 hours to prepare for the disciplinary hearing and denied a witness and representative. These rival assertions require the Court at the main suit to apply Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act. Applying Mrao v First American Bank, a genuine and arguable case showing an apparent infringement calling for rebuttal was established.
Whether the Claimant would suffer irreparable injury not compensable by damages
Conversion of the loan to commercial rates (22.59%) would significantly impair the Claimant's ability to service the Facility, and the injury would be irreparable; the Respondent retains security and can charge commercial rates retrospectively if termination is upheld.
There is a stark contrast between the 5% staff rate and the 22.59% commercial rate. With her income lost upon termination, the Claimant would probably strain to service the facility at higher repayments, so damages would not suffice. The Respondent is protected because it holds security under Clauses 6.10 and 7.10 of the Offer Letter and can still charge commercial rates and recall the facility if termination is later found fair.
Whether the balance of convenience favours the Claimant
The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Claimant, supporting the grant of the injunction.
Having found a prima facie case and irreparable injury, and given that the Respondent holds security and can recover commercial rates retrospectively if the dismissal is upheld, preserving the status quo (5% staff rate) pending trial favours the Claimant without irreparably prejudicing the Respondent.
Legal principles established
#- Though a staff loan facility is a separate contract from the employment contract, the two are closely intertwined where the facility was extended within the employment relationship, so an interlocutory freeze on the interest rate is appropriate pending determination of the fairness of termination.
- Until the legality of the termination is determined, an employee should not lose an employment benefit (staff interest rate) that flowed from the terminated employment alleged to be unfair.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent be and is hereby restrained from varying or applying interest at a rate higher than the 5% staff interest rate on the loan account and facility between the Claimant and the Respondent pending hearing and determination of the Claim herein
- 2.The costs of the Application shall be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over a claim of unfair termination and an incidental interlocutory application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngotho v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited (Cause E462 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2304 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No E462 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2304/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.