Nehondo v Bank of Africa Group Limited (Cause E1032 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 82 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a bank employee's dismissal because the employer followed proper disciplinary process and the employee admitted breaking banking procedures.
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 Claimant's contract was terminated fairly
- 2.Whether the Respondent had a valid reason to justify its decision
- 3.Whether the remedies sought by the Claimant are merited
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of termination under Section 41 Employment Act
Termination was procedurally fair; show-cause letter issued, reply considered, hearing held with a colleague present, and appeal heard and determined with reasons
The Respondent issued a show-cause letter detailing the allegations, the Claimant replied and conceded several charges, was invited to a disciplinary hearing with the right to be accompanied, attended and made concessions, was issued reasons for termination, offered terminal dues, and was given an appeal which the Managing Director determined with reasons. Sections 41 and 45 were satisfied.
Valid reason for termination under Sections 43 and 47(5)
The Respondent established valid reasons: admitted lapses in KYC compliance, unbanked cheques, erratic documentation and failure to seek compliance approval
The Claimant conceded in his reply to the show-cause letter, at the disciplinary hearing, and in court, that he breached banking policies and procedures. His colleague James Ondere agreed lapses occurred. The burden under Section 47(5) was therefore discharged by the Respondent through established and admitted grounds.
Compensation and other remedies
All monetary and declaratory remedies declined for want of merit and evidential support
Having found termination lawful and fair, the declaration and 12 months' compensation failed. Severance pay required redundancy; damages for reputational and psychological harm and loss of employability lacked evidential foundation; Provident Fund dues and statutory deductions were unproven; and the certificate of service had already issued under Section 51.
Legal principles established
#- Severance pay under Section 40 of the Employment Act applies only where termination is through redundancy.
- An employee subscribed to N.S.S.F. is not eligible for service pay under Section 35(6) of the Employment Act.
- Section 51 of the Employment Act requires only a certificate of service, not a reference or one 'befitting the status' of the employee.
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is declined
- 2.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Employment Act; not expressly stated in the judgment
Relief refused
#Severance pay at 15 days' salary for each of 12 years worked (Kshs 720,000)
Severance pay applies only to redundancy; service pay ineligible as Claimant was subscribed to N.S.S.F.
Damages for aspersed reputation, mental anguish, diminished employability and loss of career (Kshs 7,200,000)
No evidence of defamatory material, medical report, or failed job applications
Remittance of Provident Fund dues
Claimant confirmed he was paid his Provident Fund dues
Confirmation of remittance of statutory deductions
Prayer not specific; no evidence of unremitted deductions
Proper certificate of service and reference befitting his status
Section 51 only requires a certificate of service, which was issued
Declaration that termination was unfair and unlawful; compensation of 12 months' salary (Kshs 1,440,000)
Termination complied with Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act; valid and admitted grounds existed
Costs
No order on the costs (each party to bear their own costs, in effect).
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.
The Court is satisfied that termination was in accordance with the procedural and substantive standards of fairness, prescribed under Sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act.
There were clearly established and admitted valid grounds, to justify termination.
Severance pay is governed by Section 40 of the Employment Act. It applies where termination of employment is through redundancy.
It is ordered: a. The Claim is declined. b. No order on the costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The show-cause letter is inconsistently dated within the judgment
The Respondent's abbreviated name for the Bank is inconsistently rendered (BOAK, BAOK)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nehondo v Bank of Africa Group Limited (Cause E1032 of 2021) [2024] KEELRC 82 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment as supplied. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/82/eng@2024-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.