Wambui v Standard Chartered Bank of Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 383 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1495 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan bank must pay a former branch manager Kshs. 3.1 million because it fired her over misconduct it never actually proved.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the termination was substantively unfair
The termination was unfair because the Respondent did not prove the alleged personal dealings with Mr. Thuita or that the Claimant kept Kshs.1,500,000/= for him; the investigation report focused on Mr. Thuita, not the Claimant, and the claim of a personal connection was unsubstantiated.
The court applied sections 43(1), 45 and 47(5) of the Employment Act. The allegation that the client left withdrawn money with the Claimant was expressly a deduction and presumption in the Respondent's own letter. No evidence directly or indirectly connected the Claimant to irregular dealings, no witness including the client testified at the disciplinary hearing, and the DCI investigation revealed no relationship. A valid reason was therefore not established.
Admissibility of CCTV photographs without a Section 106B certificate
The court noted the absence of a certificate accompanying the CCTV evidence but the determinative finding was the failure of substantive justification, and the electronic evidence objection was raised late after documents were admitted without objection.
The court recited the requirements of Section 106B of the Evidence Act and noted no certificate accompanied the investigation report/photographs. It relied on Dry Associates, holding there is no time limit for raising the certificate issue. The Respondent argued the objection was an afterthought since documents were admitted without objection at pre-trial and hearing. The ultimate outcome rested on failure to prove a valid reason rather than exclusion of the evidence.
Whether the termination was discriminatory
Discrimination was not established; the alleged non-existence of clause 4.1 of the Conflict of Interest Policy was explained as a photocopying omission and no comparator or discriminatory reason was shown.
The Claimant relied on Ol Pejeta Ranching Ltd v David Wanjau Muhoro seeking damages for discrimination, contending she was terminated under a non-existent clause 4.1. The Respondent explained the missing page was a photocopying error. The court held the law on proof of discrimination requires comparison with other employees and proof of the reason for discrimination, neither of which was demonstrated.
Reliefs payable on finding of unfair termination
One month's notice pay, 8 months' compensation under Section 49(1)(c), and pay in lieu of 20 untaken leave days were awarded; bonus, reinstatement, harassment and discrimination damages were refused.
Having found unfair termination, the court exercised its discretion under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act to award 8 of the possible 12 months' gross salary as compensation. Notice pay of Kshs.320,000/= was awarded since the Claimant was not paid on exit. Leave pay was awarded because the Respondent did not prove the leave had been granted. The discretionary bonus failed for want of proof.
Legal principles established
#- The burden of justifying the grounds for termination rests on the employer; where the employer fails to adduce evidence connecting the employee to the alleged misconduct, the termination is unfair.
- Fairness of termination requires both substantive justification and procedural fairness.
Court orders
#- 1.One month's notice pay of Kshs.320,000/= awarded to the Claimant
- 2.Compensation for unfair termination under Section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act of 8 months' salary, i.e. Kshs.2,560,000/= (320,000 x 8)
- 3.Pay in lieu of 20 leave days awarded at Kshs.266,666/=
- 4.Claim for 2018 bonus pay declined for failure of proof
- 5.Total award of Kshs.3,146,666/= plus interest at 14% per annum from date of judgment until payment
- 6.Reinstatement refused as overtaken by events
- 7.Damages for harassment and discrimination refused as not proved
- 8.Costs awarded to the Claimant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment and labour relations cause under the Employment Act before the Employment and Labour Relations Court (specific enabling provision not cited in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wambui v Standard Chartered Bank of Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 383 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1495 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1495/eng@2025-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.