Nganda & another v National Bank of Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E042 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 188 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld a bank's summary dismissal of two employees who skipped mandatory verification steps before releasing Kshs 4.97 million to a fraudster.
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 Claimants' contracts of service were unfairly terminated.
- 2.Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs that they seek through these proceedings.
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was for a valid and justifiable reason
Yes - the Claimants sanctioned payments from a non-domicile account in breach of the Respondent's policies, amounting to gross negligence/gross misconduct
Both Claimants conceded they did not verify the account holder's details with the domicile branch as the bank's regulations required. The 1st Claimant also effected changes to the account without involving the domicile branch and produced no call logs to support his claim of attempts to verify. The court applied the range of reasonable responses test, finding any reasonable employer would have terminated the contracts for breach of the Code of Conduct.
Whether fair procedure was followed in the termination
Yes - show cause letters, responses, disciplinary hearings with adequate notice, and appeals were all provided; the process substantially complied with the law
The Claimants received show cause letters, responded, were invited to disciplinary hearings with more than five days' notice, appeared before the Disciplinary Committee and largely conceded the breaches, and their appeals were heard and rejected. Although there may have been procedural missteps, given the admissions of breach, these did not justify upsetting the employer's decision.
Whether termination without notice was lawful
Yes - gross negligence under the Respondent's Code of Conduct constitutes gross misconduct under section 44 of the Employment Act, permitting termination without notice
The Claimants were dismissed for gross negligence, which the Respondent's Code of Conduct treats as part of gross misconduct. Section 44 of the Employment Act categorises negligent performance of duty as gross misconduct for which an employer may terminate without notice. Section 35 notice was therefore not required.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not substitute its own view for that of an employer; it asks only whether the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer
- Under section 44 of the Employment Act, negligent performance of duty by an employee constitutes gross misconduct justifying summary termination without notice
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the suit
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the employment dispute (specific constitutional/statutory provision not stated in judgment)
Relief refused
#All reliefs sought by the Claimants for unfair termination
Contracts were fairly and lawfully terminated; Claimants admitted breaching the Respondent's policies on non-domicile account payments
Costs
The court dismisses the suit with costs to the Respondent.
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 upshot is that the court finds that the Claimants' contracts were fairly and lawfully terminated.
Consequently, the court dismisses the suit with costs to the Respondent.
it must make a wider inquiry to determine whether a reasonable employer could have decided to dismiss on those facts.
In the premises, the court finds that the Respondent's decision was processed substantially in compliance with the law.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the Claimants and the Respondent bank are not stated anywhere in the judgment text provided; the parties are referred to only as 'Claimants' and 'Respondent'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nganda & another v National Bank of Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E042 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 188 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/188/eng@2025-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.