Beiti v National Bank of Kenya Limited (Cause E496 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 549 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 of the claimant's employment was fair in procedure and substance
- 2.Whether the claimant was entitled to disturbance/transport allowance arising from the transfer from Mombasa to Nairobi
- 3.Whether the claimant was entitled to withheld 2018 bonus
- 4.Whether the claims relating to sale of the claimant's home, listing with the credit reference bureau, and residual outstanding loan were justified
- 5.Whether the claimant was entitled to a certificate of service and to costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was procedurally and substantively fair
Termination was fair: the claimant failed to self-appraise despite directives, was given a show-cause letter and hearing, and the reasons were valid and fair under sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
The claimant by his own testimony and exhibited documents had failed to self-appraise or fill the prescribed performance review forms. He received a show-cause letter with particulars, attended a disciplinary hearing (choosing not to bring a representative as advised), and was found culpable. His appeal was considered and rejected. Failure to adhere to performance directives amounted to insubordination under the respondent's code and section 44(4)(e) of the Employment Act.
Whether the movement from Mombasa to Nairobi attracted disturbance allowance
No allowance was payable because the movement was a reinstatement and deployment consequential to a court order, not a transfer.
The parties had previously litigated in Mombasa ELRC Cause 824 of 2016 over alleged interference with the contract, and the Court had reinstated the claimant following a rescinded resignation. The move to Eastleigh Branch in Nairobi was therefore consequential to the reinstatement ordered by the court and deployment, not a transfer triggering disturbance allowance.
Whether the claimant was entitled to the 2018 bonus
The bonus claim was declined as the bonus was a discretionary fringe benefit and the claim was not justified.
The bonus of Kshs.25,000 for 2018 was withheld following the claimant's failure to comply with performance management directives. The Court found the bonus was a discretionary fringe benefit and not justified on the facts, and declined the claim.
Legal principles established
#- An employer terminating on misconduct must comply with notice and hearing under section 41 of the Employment Act, have valid reasons under section 43, and fair reasons relating to the employee's conduct and operational requirements under section 45.
- An employee is entitled to the statutory certificate of service upon termination.
Court orders
#- 1.The certificate of service be delivered in 30 days from the date of judgment
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the suit
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 employment and labour relations disputes (Employment Act, 2007; sections 41, 43, 45 applied)
Relief refused
#12 months' salary (Kshs.1,780,000.00) as compensation for unfair and unlawful termination
Termination was found fair in procedure and substance; compensation collapsed as termination was not unfair
Outstanding disturbance allowance during transfer from Mombasa to Nairobi (Kshs.296,800.00)
The movement was not a transfer but a reinstatement and deployment consequential to a court order
Withheld 2018 bonus (Kshs.25,000.00)
Not justified; a discretionary fringe benefit
General damages (including claim arising from sale of the home to recover loans)
The home was sold to recover loans per the charge arrangements and consequential to termination and the claimant's inability to repay; claim unjustified
Relief relating to listing on the credit reference bureau
The listing was accurate as the claimant had defaulted on repaying the loan
Relief in respect of residual outstanding loan
Claimant did not disclose the residual loan or plead particulars and basis for the relief
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the suit.
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 finds that as submitted, the respondent complied with the notice and hearing per section 41 of the Act, the reasons were valid per section 43 of the Act, and the reasons were fair as they related the claimant’s misconduct and the respondent’s operational requirements per section 45 of the Act.
the movement from Mombasa to Nairobi was not a transfer but a reinstatement and deployment consequential to court order.
The claimant is entitled to the statutory certificate of service.
a. The certificate of service be delivered in 30 days from today. b. Each party to bear own costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states 'judgment is hereby entered for the parties' which is ambiguous as to which party succeeded, though the orders show the claim succeeded only on the certificate of service with each party bearing own costs.
The judgment refers to interim orders in place whose terms and origin are not disclosed on the face of this extract.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Beiti v National Bank of Kenya Limited (Cause E496 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 549 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/549/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.