Kamuti v KCB Bank Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E684 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 845 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that even a poorly performing bank employee was unfairly terminated because the employer skipped the required fair-hearing procedure.
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 Respondent followed substantive justification and procedural fairness in terminating the Claimant
- 2.If (i) above is in the affirmative, whether the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought
- 3.Who should pay the costs of the cause?
Key legal issues
#Whether the termination of the Claimant was substantively justified and procedurally fair
Substantively justified but procedurally unfair; judgment entered for the Claimant.
The court found the Claimant was clearly underperforming and showing no efforts to improve, so the Respondent had valid reasons under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act for termination on grounds of poor performance. However, the Respondent failed to follow the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 41, as it was not clarified that the capability hearing was a disciplinary hearing and the employee was not properly notified of the grounds. Both tests must be met; failure of one renders termination unfair.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought
Partially - awarded 2 months' salary (Kshs. 469,514/=) with interest; notice pay already paid; costs to each party.
Because the Respondent had valid reasons to terminate but failed on procedure, the court exercised its discretion under Section 49 of the Employment Act to award only 2 months' equivalent salary rather than the maximum 12 months sought. The one month's notice pay had already been paid, and each party was to bear their own costs.
Legal principles established
#- For a termination to pass the fairness test, there must be both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
- An employer terminating on grounds of poor performance must comply with the mandatory procedure in Section 41 of the Employment Act, including explaining the reasons and hearing the employee's representations.
- Where an employer establishes valid reasons but fails on procedure, compensation may be reduced rather than the maximum awarded.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Claimant on the finding that the termination was unprocedural
- 2.Compensation of 2 months' equivalent of salary, being a total of Kshs. 469,514/= plus interest at 14% per annum from date of judgment until full payment
- 3.No award of one month's salary in lieu of notice as the Claimant had already been paid it
- 4.Each party to meet their own costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction (Employment Act, 2007; Employment and Labour Relations Court Act)
Relief refused
#Declaration that termination was unfair and unlawful (insofar as substantive justification concerned)
The court found valid reasons for termination existed; only procedure failed.
12 months' maximum compensation
Award limited to 2 months' salary because substantive justification was established.
One month's salary in lieu of notice
Already paid to the Claimant.
Costs of the suit
Each party ordered to bear own costs.
Costs
Each party will meet their 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 the claimant was clearly underperforming and was showing no efforts to improve. However, he was unprocedurally terminated and for that reason judgment is entered in his favour.
For termination to pass the fairness test it ought to be shown that there was not only substantive justification for the termination but also procedural fairness.
Failure to follow this mandated process the termination is regarded as unprocedural.
He is awarded a total of Kshs.469,514/= plus interest at 14% per annum from date of judgment until full payment.
Each party will meet their costs of the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The Claimant's pleaded terminal date and rating figures are inconsistent with the analysis: the claim states his appraisal was 3.10 dropping to 2.94, while the court's analysis states his scorecard rating was 2.78.
The judgment uses inconsistent case name spellings for the same authority: 'Walter Ogal Anuro V Teachers Service Commissions [2013] eKLR' and 'Walter Ogal Onuro -vs- Teachers Service Commission Cause 955 of 2011'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamuti v KCB Bank Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E684 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 845 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/845/eng@2025-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.