Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedPetition dated 08.04.2025· [2025] KEELRC 2113 (KLR)

Ambasa v Equity Bank (K) Limited & another (Petition E060 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2113 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
17 July 2025
BOByram Ongaya
2,952 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed employers can end probationary jobs on 7 days' notice over failed background checks without a hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, recruited via WhatsApp by the 2nd respondent, was employed by the 1st respondent as General Manager – Employee Relations from 10.02.2025 at a consolidated monthly salary of Kshs.950,000, subject to a six-month probation and satisfactory background screening. By a letter dated 04.04.2025 signed by the 2nd respondent, his employment was terminated with immediate effect on the ground that background checks revealed information of concern. He petitioned, alleging violations of Articles 35, 41 and 47 of the Constitution, seeking declarations of nullity, reinstatement, disclosure of the screening results, 12 months' salary in the alternative, damages for anguish, a declaration that the 2nd respondent was unfit to hold an HR practitioner's licence, and costs. The respondents answered that he was on probation, had failed to disclose directorships in businesses (including Dokam Travels, Yarrow Spa & Barber Shop and Roekam Executive Barbers & Spa) flagged as high-risk for money laundering, and that CBK's Banking Circular No. 3 of 2025 implementing section 9A of the Banking Act required strict integrity standards in banking. The court held the only main issue was whether the termination was unfair, and found it was not: the background checks were part of recruitment rather than a disciplinary process, section 41 of the Employment Act did not apply, and termination during probation on seven days' notice or pay in lieu was consistent with the contract and section 42 of the Act. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, the court noting the respondents' belated disclosure of the screening particulars in justifying each party bearing own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the termination was unfair for want of notice and hearing

Holding

The termination was fair, being contractual and within the probationary period on 7 days' notice or pay in lieu

Reasoning

The appointment letter made employment subject to satisfactory background screening results and permitted termination during probation on 7 days' notice or pay in lieu. Section 41 procedures apply only to poor performance, misconduct or ill-health; the background checks formed part of recruitment, not a disciplinary process. The termination aligned with section 42 minimum terms for probationary service.

p. 7
02

Whether the petitioner was entitled to details of the background check before termination

Holding

No statutory or constitutional entitlement to a hearing on background check outcomes in the recruitment context

Reasoning

The court found the alleged statutory breaches regarding notice and hearing on background checks untenable because the checks were part of recruitment and appointment, not disciplinary proceedings, and the termination was not attributable to misconduct, poor performance or ill-health.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • During probation, an employer may terminate on contractual notice terms where termination is not attributable to poor performance, misconduct or ill-health, and such termination under a background screening clause is not a disciplinary process attracting section 41 procedures
  • Termination of probationary service on 7 days' notice or pay in lieu is consistent with the statutory minimum in section 42 of the Employment Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs of the petition
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; petition invoking Articles 35(1)(b) and (2), 41(1) and 47(1) of the Constitution of Kenya and employment and labour relations jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ambasa v Equity Bank (K) Limited & another (Petition E060 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2113 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 08.04.2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2113/eng@2025-07-17

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.