Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 27th February 2023)· [2025] KEELRC 2505 (KLR)

ANO v Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited (Cause E166 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2505 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 September 2025
HWHellen Wasilwa
10,098 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~40 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court ordered Stanbic Bank to pay KShs 5.5 million for firing a sick employee without proof she couldn't work or a fair hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, employed by the Respondent bank from 2015 and posted as a teller at Kenyatta Avenue Branch in October 2019, suffered endometriosis and post-surgery complications. She contracted Covid-19 in June 2020 and was categorised as vulnerable and allowed to work from home. In December 2021 her salary was reduced to half pay on the basis that she had exhausted her sick leave. After several medical examinations by the Respondent's doctors whose reports were not shared with her, she was issued a Notice of Intention to Terminate on 16th November 2022 citing prolonged absence due to ill health, attended a meeting on 8th December 2022, and was terminated on 22nd December 2022 on account of incapacity. Her appeal was dismissed. She sued for declarations of wrongful termination and discrimination and damages. The court framed three issues: validity of the reasons, fairness of the process, and remedies. It found no medical report before the court declared the claimant unfit to work; that the sick leave days had been wrongly accumulated across years contrary to clause AB29 of the CBA; and that she was never subjected to a proper termination hearing, the doctors never presented their findings to her, so she was condemned unheard. Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Gichuru v Package Insurance Brokers, the court held the respondent failed to investigate alternatives or reasonably accommodate her, treating her inhumanely and violating her rights to dignity, privacy and labour rights. The court declared the termination wrongful, malicious and unfair and the rights violations proved, awarding one month's notice pay (Kshs 118,000), maximum 12 months' compensation (Kshs 1,416,000) and Kshs 4 million constitutional damages, totalling Kshs 5,534,000 less statutory deductions, with costs and interest to the claimant. Judgment delivered virtually at Nairobi on 22nd September 2025 by Hellen Wasilwa, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether there were valid reasons to warrant termination on grounds of incapacity

Holding

No valid reason was established; no medical report before the court found the claimant unfit to work, and the sick-leave entitlement had been wrongly accumulated across years contrary to the CBA

Reasoning

The court found the medical reports produced did not recommend the claimant was unfit to work, the reports were never shared with her or tested at a hearing, and the respondent wrongly accumulated sick leave days from 2019 contrary to clause AB29 of the CBA which provides 8 weeks' sick leave yearly, non-cumulative. No complaints about her performance were produced in evidence.

p. 17
02

Whether the claimant was subjected to a fair process before termination

Holding

The process was unfair; the meetings were not termination hearings under section 41 of the Employment Act and the claimant was condemned unheard on the medical reports relied upon

Reasoning

The 'official meeting' was expressly stated not to be a disciplinary hearing; the doctors who authored the reports on which termination was based were never present for the claimant to respond to; the medical reports were never supplied to her. Section 41 requires explanation and an opportunity to be heard before termination on grounds of physical incapacity, which was not satisfied.

p. 18
03

Whether the claimant's constitutional rights were violated

Holding

Yes - her rights to dignity and privacy under Articles 28 and 31(d) and labour rights under Article 41(1) were violated

Reasoning

The court found the respondent treated the claimant in an inhumane way, terminating her without a hearing and without reasonable accommodation, in line with Anthony Kipkorir Sang v AG where retiring an officer on medical grounds without considering accommodation was held a rights violation.

p. 18
04

Whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies sought

Holding

Partly; the court awarded notice pay, maximum 12 months' compensation and Kshs 4 million constitutional damages, plus costs and interest

Reasoning

Given the unfairness meted against a young woman whose job prospects were slim, the court awarded the maximum 12 months' gross pay as compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act (as reflected in the award), and separate damages of Kshs 4 million for breach of constitutional rights.

p. 19

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an employer alleges medical incapacity, the burden of proving the employee medically unfit shifts to the employer, who must prove it with an expert opinion
  • Termination on grounds of incapacity without a hearing at which the employee can respond to the medical findings, and without reasonable accommodation, is unfair

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the Claimant's employment services with the Respondent were terminated wrongfully, maliciously and or unfairly
  2. 2.A declaration that the claimant's rights of dignity, privacy and labour rights were violated under Article 28, 31(d) and 41(1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
  3. 3.1 month's salary in lieu of notice = Kshs 118,000/-
  4. 4.Compensation for unlawful termination of 12 months' salary = Kshs 1,416,000/-
  5. 5.Damages for breach of constitutional rights of Kshs 4 million (total award Kshs 5,534,000/- less statutory deductions)
  6. 6.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from date of judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act and ELRC Procedure Rules, 2016 invoked)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "ANO v Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited (Cause E166 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2505 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 27th February 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2505/eng@2025-09-22

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