Njoroge v SBM Bank Kenya Limited (Cause E347 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 180 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court upheld a bank's dismissal of an IT officer over cyber-fraud, ruling the employer followed fair procedure and had valid reasons for termination.
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 termination procedure was fair, in accordance with Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
- 2.Whether the Respondent had valid reason(s) under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
- 3.Whether the Respondent has established its Counterclaim
- 4.Whether the Parties merit their respective prayers
Key legal issues
#Whether the disciplinary and termination procedure met Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
The procedure was fair: the Claimant was informed of allegations, given investigations, show-cause letter, hearing, and appeal; her claim of denial of her chosen companion was not borne out by the minutes
The Claimant recorded a statement under investigation, replied in detail to the show-cause letter, attended a hearing accompanied by a colleague whose attendance she confirmed at the outset without protest, and the minutes were signed by her. She was advised of a right of appeal, exercised it, and conceded the appeal decision was communicated. Compulsory leave extensions did not breach policy since she continued on full pay.
Whether the Respondent had valid reason to terminate under Sections 43 and 45
Yes - the Claimant's negligent handling of her computer and associations with persons implicated in the cyber-fraud gave sound, defensible and well-founded reasons
The Claimant granted unauthorized remote access to colleagues, kept a wildcard/root password contrary to password standards, left her computer unattended and unlocked allowing malware infection, and was associated with persons connected to the fraud, including advising Sharon Anyango on opening the account used to channel stolen funds. Applying the genuine-belief standard, the Court found sufficient reason established.
Whether the Counterclaim was established
The Counterclaim was allowed - the unpaid loan balance and the unreturned IPhone were undisputed
No Response to the Counterclaim was found on record, and in her evidence the Claimant did not dispute the loan amount owed at termination or that she was issued an IPhone she did not return. The Counterclaim was therefore allowed as prayed.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof of reason for unfair termination under Section 43 of the Employment Act is not proof beyond reasonable doubt; the employer need only show it genuinely believed the reason existed at the time of termination, and a valid reason is one which is sound, defensible and well-founded
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is dismissed with no order on the costs
- 2.The Counterclaim is allowed as prayed, but with no order on the costs
- 3.The Claimant is at liberty to collect her certificate of service and terminal dues, as offered by the Respondent, in the letter of termination
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment Act 2007 (Sections 41, 43, 44, 45) - first-instance Employment and Labour Relations Court claim
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination was malicious, unfair and unlawful; notice pay; service pay; 12 months' compensation; general damages of Kshs. 5,000,000; pension; interest
Procedure conformed to the Respondent's Human Resource Policy and Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act, and the reasons for termination were valid under Sections 43 and 45
Costs of the Claim and the Counterclaim
The Court made no order on costs for both the Claim and the Counterclaim
Costs
No order on the costs of the Claim and no order on the costs of the Counterclaim
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.
It is ordered: a. The Claim is dismissed with no order on the costs.
The Counterclaim is allowed as prayed, but with no order on the costs.
The Claimant is at liberty to collect her certificate of service and terminal dues, as ofiered by the Respondent, in the letter of termination.
A valid reason is one which is sound, defensible and well-founded, and not fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced
She was cast as an insider, assisting fellow insiders and outsiders, to rob her bank using a computer, instead of a gun.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in dates: show-cause letter stated in the record as dated 17th November 2020, but the Court's findings refer to it as '17th November 2017'
Internal inconsistency in the effective date of termination: the termination letter erroneously stated 22nd January 2020, which the Court itself noted could not be correct
Discrepancy in the total fraud loss figure: the Statement of Response pleads a possible loss of Kshs. 11,491,914, while the evidence and findings put the loss at about Kshs. 9.5 million
Discrepancy on the date compulsory leave commenced: the record states 13th July 2020, but the Court's findings state 17th August 2020
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge v SBM Bank Kenya Limited (Cause E347 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 180 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/180/eng@2025-01-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.