ANO v Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited (Cause E166 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2505 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ordered Stanbic Bank to pay KShs 5.5 million for firing a sick employee without proof she couldn't work or a fair hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there were valid reasons to warrant the claimant's termination.
- 2.Whether the claimant was subject to a fair process before termination.
- 3.Whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether there were valid reasons to warrant termination on grounds of incapacity
No valid reason was established; no medical report before the court found the claimant unfit to work, and the sick-leave entitlement had been wrongly accumulated across years contrary to the CBA
The court found the medical reports produced did not recommend the claimant was unfit to work, the reports were never shared with her or tested at a hearing, and the respondent wrongly accumulated sick leave days from 2019 contrary to clause AB29 of the CBA which provides 8 weeks' sick leave yearly, non-cumulative. No complaints about her performance were produced in evidence.
Whether the claimant was subjected to a fair process before termination
The process was unfair; the meetings were not termination hearings under section 41 of the Employment Act and the claimant was condemned unheard on the medical reports relied upon
The 'official meeting' was expressly stated not to be a disciplinary hearing; the doctors who authored the reports on which termination was based were never present for the claimant to respond to; the medical reports were never supplied to her. Section 41 requires explanation and an opportunity to be heard before termination on grounds of physical incapacity, which was not satisfied.
Whether the claimant's constitutional rights were violated
Yes - her rights to dignity and privacy under Articles 28 and 31(d) and labour rights under Article 41(1) were violated
The court found the respondent treated the claimant in an inhumane way, terminating her without a hearing and without reasonable accommodation, in line with Anthony Kipkorir Sang v AG where retiring an officer on medical grounds without considering accommodation was held a rights violation.
Whether the claimant is entitled to the remedies sought
Partly; the court awarded notice pay, maximum 12 months' compensation and Kshs 4 million constitutional damages, plus costs and interest
Given the unfairness meted against a young woman whose job prospects were slim, the court awarded the maximum 12 months' gross pay as compensation under section 49 of the Employment Act (as reflected in the award), and separate damages of Kshs 4 million for breach of constitutional rights.
Legal principles established
#- Where an employer alleges medical incapacity, the burden of proving the employee medically unfit shifts to the employer, who must prove it with an expert opinion
- Termination on grounds of incapacity without a hearing at which the employee can respond to the medical findings, and without reasonable accommodation, is unfair
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Claimant's employment services with the Respondent were terminated wrongfully, maliciously and or unfairly
- 2.A declaration that the claimant's rights of dignity, privacy and labour rights were violated under Article 28, 31(d) and 41(1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
- 3.1 month's salary in lieu of notice = Kshs 118,000/-
- 4.Compensation for unlawful termination of 12 months' salary = Kshs 1,416,000/-
- 5.Damages for breach of constitutional rights of Kshs 4 million (total award Kshs 5,534,000/- less statutory deductions)
- 6.Respondent to pay costs of the suit plus interest at court rates with effect from 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 Court jurisdiction over employment disputes (Employment Act and ELRC Procedure Rules, 2016 invoked)
Relief refused
#Order for quantum of discrimination as a separate head / general damages under prayer (f) beyond the constitutional damages awarded
The court did not award a distinct discrimination quantum as claimed; it instead awarded 12 months' compensation and constitutional damages
Costs
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with effect from 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.
There is no report submitted before court from any doctor recommending the claimant is unfit to work.
She was thus condemned unheard and her incapacity was not established.
I find for the claimant and award her as follows: 1. A declaration that the Claimant's employment services with the Respondent were terminated wrongfully, maliciously and or unfairly.
The respondents will pay costs of this suit plus interest at court rates with efiect from date of this judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#Contradictory statements on the number of days of absence cited as ground for termination
Judgment states the termination letter was dated 2/12/22 while the body of the judgment and pleadings refer to the termination letter dated 22nd December 2022
Declaration of rights cites Article 4(1) of the Constitution in the orders, which appears to be a typographical error for Article 41(1) (labour rights) pleaded and discussed
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "ANO v Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited (Cause E166 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2505 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Memorandum of Claim dated 27th February 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2505/eng@2025-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.