Tazim Sadrudin Vassanji challenged his dismissal after an investigation linked him to a KSh149 million alleged theft. The court struck out his constitutional petition, ruling that his grievances should be pursued through ordinary employment law.
A former Diamond Trust Bank employee’s bitter workplace battle has taken another unexpected legal turn.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court has struck out Tazim Sadrudin Vassanji’s constitutional petition against the bank.
Justice Jemimah Keli, who delivered the ruling in Nairobi last week, did not, however, determine whether Vassanji was actually mistreated during DTB’s investigation.
Instead, she found that the dispute belonged within ordinary employment law.
The decision followed allegations of confinement, intimidation and coercive questioning by senior bank officials.
Vassanji had claimed DTB violated several constitutional rights during the disciplinary process.
The allegations included unlawful detention, privacy violations and unfair labour practices.
The petition also challenged the circumstances surrounding Vassanji’s eventual dismissal.
The ruling therefore closes one legal door while leaving another potentially open.
That distinction matters because Vassanji remained within time for an ordinary employment claim.
Justice Keli specifically noted that possibility before closing the constitutional proceedings.
Locked Room
The dispute began with an internal DTB investigation into suspected irregular banking transactions at DTB’s Parkland branch.
Vassanji said the investigation quickly crossed the boundaries of ordinary workplace discipline.
According to the petition, Vassanji returned to work on July 14, 2025.
The petition alleged confinement inside DTB’s Security Office for approximately six-and-a-half hours.
Vassanji further alleged that officials confiscated a personal mobile phone during questioning.
Access to lawyers and outside communication was allegedly denied during that period.
The petition also alleged isolation from colleagues, coercive questioning and intimidation.
Vassanji argued those actions violated constitutional protections for dignity, liberty and privacy.
The allegations did not end inside the bank’s security office.
Vassanji also described an alleged August 6, 2025, meeting held at Nairobi’s Serena Hotel convened by senior DTB executives, including Nasim Devji, Murali Natarajan, and Peter Koome.
According to the petition, the meeting happened outside formal disciplinary procedures.
Vassanji alleged threats of arrest unless personal responsibility was accepted.
Those allegations gave the case its constitutional character and raised difficult questions.
Could an employer’s disciplinary conduct become a separate constitutional violation?
Justice Keli ultimately answered that question against Vassanji.
DTB Pushes Back
DTB argued that Vassanji had constitutionalised an ordinary employment dispute.
The bank said investigations, suspension and dismissal were employment matters. Those matters, it argued, were already governed by the Employment Act.
The bank also disputed the allegations concerning confinement and intimidation.
It said those claims remained unsupported by independent contemporary evidence.
DTB argued that complex banking transactions would require oral evidence and cross-examination.
That argument placed the doctrine of constitutional avoidance at the centre.
The doctrine generally discourages constitutional determination where another adequate remedy exists.
Justice Keli relied on several appellate decisions supporting that approach.
The judge cited the Court of Appeal’s decision in Wajir Wasco Limited.
That case warned that constitutional language does not transform every employment dispute.
Courts should instead examine whether ordinary legislation provides adequate relief.
Statutory Route
Justice Keli found Vassanji’s allegations were ultimately rooted in employment law.
She accepted that constitutional rights had been expressly pleaded.
However, those alleged violations remained connected to the disciplinary and termination process.
The judge particularly focused on Article 41’s protection of fair labour practices.
She found those protections had already been implemented through employment legislation.
Sections 41 and 45 of the Employment Act therefore provided the relevant statutory framework.
The court consequently found no independent constitutional controversy requiring constitutional adjudication.
“The grievance in the dispute is a claim of unlawful and unfair termination,” Justice Keli stated.
That finding proved decisive because Vassanji had not challenged the Employment Act itself.
Neither had the petition demonstrated that statutory employment remedies were inadequate.
The judge therefore concluded that an ordinary employment claim was the proper route.
Bigger Picture
The ruling comes as Vassanji also faces separate criminal proceedings linked to DTB.
Vassanji was charged alongside two former DTB managers in June 2026.
Prosecutors brought 68 counts involving alleged theft, forgery and money laundering.
The criminal case concerns alleged transactions involving more than KSh149.3 million stolen from a customer’s account.
Prosecutors allege funds were withdrawn from customer Rozina Nurdin Patelia’s account.
The alleged transactions reportedly occurred between 2016 and 2021.
Vassanji and the other accused have denied the criminal charges against them. The court later released Vassanji on a KSh1 million bond and an alternative cash bail of KSh300,000.
Those criminal allegations remain separate from the employment proceedings struck out by Justice Keli.
The constitutional ruling itself makes no finding of criminal wrongdoing. Nor does it determine whether Vassanji’s allegations against DTB were true.
Instead, the judge made a procedural determination about the appropriate legal forum.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
