Njue v KCB Bank Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E782 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2018 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled KCB unfairly sacked a manager because it called no witnesses and skipped its own appeal process, awarding 10 months' salary.
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 employment was procedurally fair
- 2.Whether the termination of employment was justified (valid and fair reasons)
- 3.Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought
- 4.Who bears the costs of the proceedings
Key legal issues
#Procedural fairness of the disciplinary process
The process was procedurally unfair because the Respondent called no witnesses at the disciplinary hearing, denying the Claimant an opportunity to cross-examine, and the documents relied upon (including the forensic report and hospital records) were not produced through witnesses
Section 41 of the Employment Act requires the employer to explain the reasons for termination and afford the employee a hearing. The court held that the envisaged hearing involves witnesses who can be cross-examined. The Respondent relied on an independent forensic report and recorded statements not provided to the Claimant, and no witness from the hospital testified regarding alleged forged documents. The committee therefore had no proof of the allegations.
Failure to constitute a disciplinary appeals committee and hear the appeal
The Respondent did not constitute the Disciplinary Appeals Committee required under clauses 4.16 and 6.9 of its own Disciplinary and Grievance Handling Policy, rendering the process flawed
The Claimant established that the KCB Bank Group Disciplinary and Grievance Handling Policy dated 28th December 2012 establishes a Disciplinary Appeals Committee to hear appeals. Despite the Claimant appealing on 21st September 2018, the Respondent did not constitute such a committee. This internal policy non-compliance contributed to the finding of procedural unfairness.
Substantive justification for the termination
The Respondent failed to prove valid and fair reasons for the termination since no evidence was adduced through witnesses to establish the allegations of fictitious injury reports, falsified sales credit and data manipulation
The court noted the Respondent alleged forgery of hospital documents, falsification of sales credit and data manipulation but called no witness to produce that evidence. Under Sections 43, 45(2) and 47(5) of the Employment Act the employer bears the burden of proving valid and fair reasons. The RW1 himself admitted no witnesses were called and that the forensic report and statements were not given to the Claimant.
Remedies for unfair termination
The Claimant was awarded 10 months' salary as compensation, a certificate of service, costs and interest
In exercising discretion under Section 49 of the Employment Act, the court considered the failure by the Respondent to follow due process and the cutting short of the Claimant's career. It fixed compensation at 10 months of the salary of Kshs 157,993, less statutory deductions, and ordered issuance of a certificate of service with costs and interest.
Legal principles established
#- A fair disciplinary process under Section 41 of the Employment Act requires that witnesses be called and the employee be given a chance to cross-examine them; where no witness is called, there is no proof of the allegations
- Termination is unfair where the employer fails to establish a valid and fair reason and fair procedure
Court orders
#- 1.10 months' salary as compensation for unfair termination, computed as 10 x 157,993 = Kshs 1,579,930 less statutory deductions
- 2.The Claimant to be issued with a certificate of service
- 3.The Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of judgment
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Act, Section 12 (dispute arising from employment and unfair termination)
Relief refused
#Twelve months' salary compensation for unfair termination
The court awarded 10 months rather than 12, considering the failure to follow due process and the cutting short of the Claimant's career
Compensation for the workplace injury (deformed finger)
No relief was awarded on the injury claim; the claim as pleaded was for unfair termination reliefs, and the forensic investigation found the injury was not sustained at the workplace
Costs
The respondent should pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from the date of this judgment
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.
In view of the failure by the respondent to follow due process and cutting short the claimant’s career, I find 10 months salary as compensation for the unfair termination is appropriate and which I award = 10x157,993= Kshs 1,579,930 less statutory deductions.
The claimant should also be issued with a certificate of service. The respondent should pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from the date of this judgment.
Under the law the disciplinary process envisaged is a hearing where witnesses are called and the employee has a chance to cross examine them.
Indeed, without establishment of the existence of valid reason and without demonstrating that due process was followed the termination becomes unfair and unjustified and for which I find.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the termination letter was dated 1st September 2018 while the pleadings and submissions throughout record the termination as effective 18th September 2018
The date of the KCB Disciplinary and Grievance Handling Policy is inconsistently stated as 25th December 2012 in paragraph 66 and 28th December 2012 elsewhere
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njue v KCB Bank Kenya Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E782 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 2018 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 19th July 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2018/eng@2025-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.