A former KCB Customer Service Manager blamed serious health problems, allegedly manipulated appraisals and a disputed job change for his dismissal. The court upheld KCB’s decision but spared him legal costs after nearly 19 years of service.
KCB Bank has won a legal battle against a former employee who challenged his dismissal over sustained poor performance.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi ruled that Sammy Kipkorir Lang’at’s termination was justified and procedurally fair.
Justice David Marete dismissed the claim on October 13, 2026, despite identifying an unexplained inconsistency in the bank’s handling of Lang’at’s responsibilities.
Lang’at, who served KCB for approximately 19 years, blamed his declining performance on serious health problems.
He also alleged that the bank manipulated his appraisal scores and unfairly changed his job responsibilities.
Long Service
KCB employed Lang’at on November 19, 2001, and he eventually rose to Customer Service Manager.
His troubles began after serious health complications emerged in July 2017.
He was hospitalised at The Karen Hospital and underwent back surgery.
Lang’at argued that his medical condition affected his performance and deserved consideration before disciplinary action.
He accused the bank of failing to make reasonable accommodation for his condition before initiating performance management proceedings.
The dispute escalated in September 2019, when KCB issued two warning letters.
One concerned his performance during the first half of 2019, while another addressed the second half of 2018.
The bank subsequently placed him on a Performance Improvement Programme, offering coaching, guidance and additional time to improve.
KCB maintained that his performance remained below the required standards across several assessment periods.
Lang’at disputed those findings, insisting that his scores had been manipulated downwards.
He maintained that his 2019 and 2020 scores were 3.24 and 3.15, respectively.
Both scores exceeded the stated pass mark of 3.0, according to his claim.
He therefore questioned the accuracy of the bank’s assessments and the fairness of his eventual dismissal.
Disputed Demotion
The dispute took another turn on March 5, 2020, when KCB issued Lang’at with a cashier job description.
He argued that the change amounted to a demotion from his managerial position.
He further claimed that the bank continued assessing him against his former Customer Service Manager responsibilities.
Justice Marete acknowledged a significant gap in KCB’s explanation of the reassignment.
The judge noted that the bank had not satisfactorily explained which responsibilities governed Lang’at’s subsequent performance assessments.
The judgement described the unexplained inconsistency as “a point in the Claimant’s favour.”
However, the judge found that this weakness did not invalidate the dismissal.
The cashier job description preceded the termination letter by approximately five months.
More importantly, the court considered the earlier appraisal records substantial evidence supporting KCB’s decision.
Those records covered performance periods before the disputed change of responsibilities.
Evidence Prevails
The court found that KCB had produced sufficient documentation showing sustained poor performance between 2017 and 2020.
Its evidence included appraisal records, coaching documentation and the outcome of the improvement programme.
Section 43 of the Employment Act requires employers to prove their reasons for terminating employment.
Section 41 separately requires a fair hearing before termination on grounds such as poor performance.
Lang’at’s allegation of manipulated scores failed to overcome the bank’s documentary evidence.
The judge noted that he had produced no “source data, assessor records or corroborating material” to displace the appraisal documents.
The court therefore found that KCB had discharged its burden of proving the reason for termination.
Lang’at’s medical argument also failed to overturn the decision.
Although the court acknowledged his hospitalisation and surgery, it found insufficient evidence connecting his condition to specific recorded performance shortcomings.
The judgement concluded that he had not established a “causal nexus” between his health condition and the documented deficiencies.
Costs Spared
The court also examined whether KCB had followed a fair termination process.
The record showed that Lang’at received warnings, entered a Performance Improvement Programme and attended a disciplinary hearing.
He challenged the hearing venue identified in his invitation, which specified the bank’s Regional Office in the Western Region.
However, the judge rejected that objection because Lang’at had attended the hearing.
The court found that the process had “substantially complied with Section 41” of the Employment Act.
Lang’at had sought reinstatement, compensation equivalent to twelve months’ salary and removal of adverse performance records.
The court rejected those remedies after finding the termination substantively justified and procedurally fair.
Yet the judge declined to award KCB its legal costs.
He considered Lang’at’s approximately nineteen years of service and his genuine belief that his performance records had been unfairly manipulated.
READ ALSO: NIC Bank Escapes KSh324.9 Million Claim Over 2009 CRB Listing
The judgement said the length and nature of his service justified “a departure from the ordinary cost’s rule”.
The court dismissed the claim dated March 28, 2022, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
The decision underscores the importance of documented performance concerns and fair improvement procedures.
It also shows that unexplained changes in job responsibilities can weaken an employer’s case without necessarily overturning otherwise compelling evidence.
For Lang’at, nearly two decades of service secured consideration over costs, but not compensation or reinstatement.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
