A former Diamond Trust Bank manager has suffered a fresh court setback following her dismissal.
Justice Jemimah Keli struck out Salimah Ameen Pirbhai’s constitutional petition against Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited.
The judge found that Pirbhai had improperly constitutionalised an ordinary employment dispute.
The ruling delivered virtually in Nairobi on August 20, 2026, closed the case.
Yet the decision stopped short of determining whether DTB actually mistreated or unlawfully dismissed Pirbhai.
Instead, Justice Keli focused squarely on the legal route chosen by Pirbhai.
She concluded that employment legislation already provided adequate remedies for her central grievances.
That finding effectively sent the dispute back toward Kenya’s ordinary employment-law framework.
A Disputed Exit
Pirbhai filed her constitutional petition on January 16, 2026, after losing employment as a DTB Parklands branch manager earning KSh 649,990 per month.
She accused DTB of violating her constitutional rights to dignity and fair labour practices.
She also alleged violations involving fair administrative action and workplace harassment.
Her petition sought compensation equivalent to twelve months of her gross salary.
She additionally demanded KSh193,218, which she claimed DTB unlawfully deducted from terminal dues.
The dispute followed investigations into suspected irregular banking transactions at DTB’s Parklands branch.
According to court documents, those investigations eventually triggered suspension, disciplinary proceedings and termination.
Pirbhai, however, insisted that something more serious had happened before her dismissal.
She alleged senior executives subjected her to intimidation, coercion and threats during informal meetings.
Some meetings allegedly occurred at the Ole Sereni and Serena hotels.
She claimed executives pressured her to accept personal responsibility for disputed withdrawals.
She further alleged pressure to alter her account and sign favourable statements.
The allegations became more extraordinary when Pirbhai said her brother was summoned.
She claimed DTB used the meeting to exert indirect pressure through her family.
She therefore argued that the conduct invaded her privacy and family life.
Her lawyers maintained that such conduct went beyond ordinary disciplinary procedures.
They said ordinary employment law could not adequately address those alleged constitutional violations.
DTB Challenges the Petition
DTB responded by asking the Employment and Labour Relations Court to strike out proceedings.
The bank argued that the petition merely repackaged an employment dispute as constitutional litigation.
Its lawyers pointed to sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Employment Act.
Those provisions address procedural fairness, justification and unfair termination within employment relationships.
DTB also disputed the more serious allegations concerning intimidation and alleged deprivation of liberty.
The bank argued those claims remained unsupported by contemporaneous evidence or independent documentation.
It further warned that affidavit proceedings could prejudice its ability to test evidence.
According to DTB, complex banking transactions required witnesses and proper evidentiary examination.
The bank consequently urged Justice Keli to apply constitutional avoidance.
That doctrine discourages constitutional determination where ordinary legislation provides an adequate solution.
The Judge’s Reasoning
Justice Keli began by acknowledging that courts rarely strike out cases summarily.
She cited the famous D.T. Dobie principle against destroying potentially curable claims prematurely.
But the judge found this case presented a clear constitutional-avoidance problem.
She examined the substance of Pirbhai’s pleadings rather than their constitutional labels.
That examination proved decisive.
The judge found that Pirbhai had anchored her grievances principally under Article 41.
Article 41 protects fair labour practices and has statutory expression through employment legislation.
Justice Keli therefore rejected the argument that the dispute required constitutional adjudication.
She specifically asked whether the alleged violations fell outside employment-law protections.
Her answer was emphatic: “I find in the negative.”
The court found that employment legislation could adequately address the termination dispute.
It consequently concluded that Pirbhai should have filed an ordinary employment claim.
The judge also noted that Pirbhai remained within the statutory limitation period.
Her October 13, 2025, dismissal therefore did not extinguish her employment-law options.
A Bigger Banking Backdrop
The employment ruling arrives against an increasingly significant criminal case involving Pirbhai.
In June, prosecutors charged her alongside two other former DTB employees.
They face 68 counts involving alleged theft, forgery, money laundering and conspiracy.
The prosecution alleges the scheme involved more than KSh149.3 million.
The alleged victim is customer Rozina Nurdin Patelia, who maintained a foreign-currency account.
Former assistant branch manager Aabid Alkarim Kassam faces the largest allegations.
Prosecutors accuse him of stealing KSh58.2 million during an earlier period.
They also allege another KSh10.9 million disappeared between 2019 and 2021.
Pirbhai separately faces an allegation involving KSh39.6 million from DTB itself.
She is also accused of preparing a false bank statement after that alleged theft.
All three suspects have denied the criminal allegations against them.
A Nairobi court subsequently granted Pirbhai a KSh1 million bond.
Those criminal allegations remain separate from Justice Keli’s employment ruling.
Importantly, the employment court made no factual finding establishing Pirbhai’s criminal liability.
Neither did the ruling determine whether her allegations against DTB were ultimately true.
What Comes Next
The ruling instead establishes that Pirbhai chose the wrong procedural doorway.
Justice Keli allowed DTB’s application dated March 5, 2026, and struck out her petition.
However, the judge softened the consequence by ordering each side to bear costs.
The decision therefore leaves Pirbhai’s substantive employment grievances legally unresolved.
It also leaves unanswered her allegations concerning intimidation, coercion and alleged family pressure.
For DTB, meanwhile, the ruling delivers an important procedural victory.
But it does not amount to judicial exoneration from every allegation surrounding Pirbhai’s employment.
The criminal proceedings will now provide a separate arena for testing the banking allegations.
And the employment framework remains available for any properly filed claim.
For now, however, Justice Keli’s message is unmistakable and legally consequential.
READ ALSO: Court Orders DTB, Airtel to Compensate Customer Over KSh592,864 SIM Swap Fraud
Constitutional rights cannot automatically transform every contested workplace dispute into constitutional litigation.
Where employment law offers an adequate remedy, that statutory route must ordinarily come first.
That principle ultimately ended Pirbhai’s constitutional challenge before its substantive allegations received a full hearing.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
