The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi has delivered a firm ruling against Family Bank, faulting the lender for dismissing one of its managers without clear performance targets or a fair disciplinary process.
The judgment highlights the importance of following proper procedure when handling workplace disputes, especially those linked to performance.
The case involved Kevin Ndungu Kiriga, who was dismissed in April 2017 on claims of continued underperformance. However, the court found that the bank failed to support this claim with evidence or follow the legal steps required before terminating an employee.
The ruling made it clear that employers must provide clear expectations and give employees a fair chance to respond before making such decisions.
“An employee cannot be accused and/or terminated for ‘underperforming’ duties whose description he has not been given, and key performance indicators of which have not been given in writing by the employer before the job performance commences,” the judge said.
Mr Kiriga had joined the bank in June 2013 as an assistant manager earning Sh110,000 and later rose to a managerial position with a salary of Sh145,000. During his time at the bank, he was moved across departments, including corporate banking and relationship management.
The court noted that these role changes were not supported by written job descriptions or clearly defined performance targets.
When the bank terminated his employment on April 28, 2017, it cited underperformance. However, no documentation such as scorecards or agreed targets was presented in court to justify this claim.
“The respondent did not establish the validity of the alleged reason for terminating the claimant’s employment. There was, therefore, no substantive fairness in terminating the claimant’s employment,” the court ruled.
The court also found that the bank failed to follow due process. It did not issue a show-cause letter or conduct a disciplinary hearing, and evidence showed that Mr Kiriga was not given a chance to defend himself.
“The respondent did not comply with the mandatory procedure and did not give the claimant an opportunity,” the court said.
As a result, the court awarded Mr Kiriga Sh1.3 million, equivalent to nine months’ salary, citing the abrupt nature of his dismissal. However, his claim for Sh43.5 million in additional compensation was dismissed due to lack of legal basis.
The ruling further questioned a performance review conducted shortly after Mr Kiriga was transferred to a new role, noting that the bank did not clearly define the duties being assessed.
It stressed that employers must clearly outline roles, set measurable targets, and revise contracts when responsibilities change.
The court found that the bank’s actions failed both substantive and procedural fairness standards, reinforcing the legal obligation on employers to act fairly and transparently in all disciplinary matters.
