Adhiambo v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited (Cause 205 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 3695 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a banker's unfair termination claim because she misrepresented her job title to get hired, and also threw out the bank's huge counterclaim.
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 Claimant's contract was terminated by the Respondent following a fair procedure
- 2.Whether termination was based on valid reason
- 3.Whether the Claimant merits the prayers sought
- 4.Whether the Counterclaim has been established
- 5.Who should meet the costs of the Claim and the Counterclaim
Key legal issues
#Whether termination followed a fair procedure under Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act
Procedural fairness was met; deficiencies in the first hearing were cured by a second hearing over a month later
Although no show-cause letter was issued and only one day's notice was given for the 7th May 2015 hearing, the Claimant was granted a second hearing on 12th June 2015. She knew the allegations, was advised of her right to be accompanied, did not request more time, signed the minutes, and disputed nothing in them. No adverse decision was taken until after the second hearing.
Whether termination was based on a valid reason
Yes - the Claimant misrepresented her position as Branch Operations Manager when she was an Operations Officer, breaching trust and confidence essential in banking
The Claimant presented herself as Branch Operations Manager at interview when she had reverted to Operations Officer in February 2012, then signed a declaration that her information was correct, with notice that false information could attract action. Her explanation of a genuine error was unpersuasive. Banking operates on trust and integrity, and she procured a managerial position by false pretences.
Whether the Respondent's Counterclaim of Kshs. 6,359,813 was established
No - the sum was not specifically proved and appeared to violate the in duplum rule
The balance counterclaimed was Kshs. 1,921,279 as at August 2017; after recovering Kshs. 2.2 million through auction of the Claimant's property in 2020, the counterclaim inexplicably stood at more than triple that sum. The Respondent led no clear loan records to substantiate it. A line must be drawn between legitimate banking and loan sharking; the amount, if anything, was usurious.
Legal principles established
#- A second disciplinary hearing cures procedural deficiencies in the first (absence of show-cause letter and short notice), where the employee is ultimately heard and no adverse decision is taken until the second hearing
- Misrepresentation of qualifications or job title in securing employment breaches the obligation of trust and confidence and constitutes valid reason for termination under Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act
- A party asserting a specific monetary counterclaim must specifically establish it through clear records and oral evidence; an unexplained, escalating loan balance may violate the in duplum rule
- Employers have no obligation to issue former employees letters of recommendation or apology
Court orders
#- 1.The Claim is rejected
- 2.The Counterclaim is rejected
- 3.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First-instance employment and labour relations claim under the Employment Act and Article 162(2) jurisdiction of the E&LRC; delivered pursuant to Rule 68(5) of the E&LRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#12 months' salary (Kshs. 1,953,000) compensation for unfair termination
Termination was procedurally fair and based on valid reason - the Claimant misrepresented her job title to secure a managerial position, breaching trust and confidence
7 years' salary (Kshs. 13,671,000) for loss of career and unfair labour practices
The Claim has no foundation; the Claimant procured employment by false pretences
Damages for refusal to issue a Certificate of Service
The Claimant confirmed she was issued her certificate of service
General damages for mental anguish and violation of Articles 28 and 47
No adverse reports were communicated to potential employers; prayers for general damages under various heads declined
Compulsion to withdraw CRB listing
The Claimant conceded she had taken various loans and had not repaid them by termination, and that banks normally list defaulters with CRB
Apology letter and recommendation letter
Employers have no obligation to issue former Employees letters of recommendation or apology
Respondent's Counterclaim of Kshs. 6,359,813
The sum was not specifically proved, appears to violate the in duplum rule under Section 44A of the Banking Act, and at worst is usurious
Costs
No order on the costs.
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 sum, it is ordered: a. The Claim is rejected. b. The Counterclaim is rejected. c. No order on the costs.
Any mischief occasioned on 6th May 2015 and 7th May 2015, was cured by the second round of disciplinary hearing. No adverse decision was taken against the Claimant, until the second hearing.
The Claimant was clearly in breach of her obligation of trust and confidence, in an industry where these values are the cornerstones of an employer-employee relationship. She procured a managerial position with the Respondent, by false pretences.
The sum counterclaimed has not been specifically proved, and appears in violation of the in duplum rule under Section 44A [1] and [2] of the Banking Act Cap 488 the Laws of Kenya, as submitted by the Claimant. At worst, it is usurious.
The Claimant lost her job, her salary and terminal dues, as well as her property. What more must she lose, to be deemed to have satisfied her obligation to the Respondent?
A line must be drawn between legitimate banking, and loan sharking.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the dates of the disciplinary hearings: the pleadings and evidence refer to a first hearing on 7th May 2015 while the Claimant's testimony refers to a hearing on 6th May 2015, and second hearing dated 12th June 2015 in the pleadings but 12th June 2016 in the Claimant's testimony
Conflicting dates for the notification of sale: the judgment states it was dated 12th April 2018 but indicates amounts as of 27th February 2018
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Adhiambo v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited (Cause 205 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 3695 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi E&LRC Claim (initial Statement of Claim dated 5th February 2016; Further Amended Statement of Claim dated 3rd November 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3695/eng@2025-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.