The Employment and Labour Relations Court has upheld NCBA Bank’s decision to dismiss an assistant operations officer linked to suspicious transactions, including unauthorised access to customer accounts, interaction with suspected fraudsters, and receipt of improper benefits.
The court said the banking sector demands strict integrity standards, adding that lenders can rely on digital audit trails such as account access histories, transaction records and CCTV-linked timelines to discipline staff implicated in fraud.
The court found that Simon Kamande’s sacking in 2017 was valid and followed a fair disciplinary process, bringing to a close a dispute that arose after the bank flagged irregular account activity tied to suspected fraud.
The case dates back to investigations at Commercial Bank of Africa, NCBA’s predecessor, where Mr Kamande worked as an operations assistant at the Mama Ngina Street branch.
Fraud trail
The probe was triggered by a suspicious email in December 2016 instructing a transfer of Sh890,000 from a customer’s account.
A bank officer flagged the discrepancy after noting that the email address differed from the customer’s registered contact. The customer denied issuing the instructions, prompting a wider investigation by the bank’s security unit.
The probe uncovered a trail of suspicious transactions involving multiple accounts.
Court records show Mr Kamande accessed customer accounts without instruction and at unusual hours. System logs indicated he viewed account profiles, including balances and signing mandates, using customers’ base numbers even when no customer was present.
In one instance, he accessed an account at about 5:22 pm, after official banking hours, when CCTV footage showed the banking hall lights were off and he was alone at the customer service desk.
His digital activity placed him at the centre of transactions later flagged as fraudulent. Investigators traced multiple irregular transactions involving accounts linked to suspected fraudsters.
The court found he viewed sensitive account details without justification, interacted with suspected fraudsters within bank premises, and received small cash benefits from one of them.
He was also accused of processing a cheque payment without verifying signatures against account mandates, and of sending a threatening WhatsApp message to a teller group.
‘The claimant’s digital prints were found in all the above fraudulent transactions,’ the court said, adding this gave the bank ‘reasonable grounds to believe that the claimant was directly and indirectly involved in aiding and abetting the fraudulent activities.’
Due process
The dispute escalated in January 2017 when Mr Kamande was summoned to the bank’s security department instead of reporting to his branch. He was investigated, suspended and later subjected to a disciplinary hearing.
Mr Kamande denied wrongdoing, claiming he was coerced into providing personal data, including phone logs and messages, during the probe, and that the process was flawed and discriminatory. He sought reinstatement, damages and retention of a subsidised staff loan rate.
The court rejected these claims, finding no evidence of coercion, bias or discrimination. It ruled that the bank conducted fair investigations and accorded him a proper hearing before termination.
‘The claimant was subjected to fair investigations and was fairly treated at a disciplinary process,’ the court said, adding that the misconduct could have justified summary dismissal.
The court stressed that banks operate in a highly sensitive environment and must maintain strict integrity standards. It cited precedent affirming that staff whose conduct points to fraud risk losing their employment.
‘Banks are custodians of their customers’ funds and other valuables of a personal nature and operate in a highly sensitive environment,’ the court said.
‘To maintain customer confidence, banks and their staff are required to uphold a high degree of integrity, prudence and financial probity.’
The ruling affirms the use of digital audit trails in internal probes, with system access records forming key evidence linking employees to suspect transactions.
The court agreed that Mr Kamande’s conduct breached internal policies and eroded trust, justifying his dismissal.
The court also dismissed his claim that the termination was discriminatory, finding no evidence linking the termination to his gender.
It rejected his demand to continue servicing a staff loan at concessional rates after dismissal, upholding the bank’s position that such loans convert to commercial rates once employment ends.
The court noted that preferential terms cannot apply where termination arises from an employee’s own misconduct.
Mr Kamande’s additional claims regarding withheld benefits and the contents of his certificate of service were also dismissed, with the court finding no basis to interfere with the bank’s actions.