SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Zamzam v Gulf African Bank Limited (Cause E006 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 165 (KLR) (30 January 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELRC 165 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
165
Citation
[2025] KEELRC 165 (KLR)
Decided
30 January 2025
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from an original trial decisionCoramM MBARŨ, J
The claimant's termination was justified due to his failure to provide an excellent customer experience, as per the bank's Customer First philosophy. The termination was also procedurally fair.

Facts

The claimant, Said Ahmed Zamzam, was employed by Gulf African Bank Limited as a treasury sales officer. He was terminated on September 7, 2021, for allegedly denying a customer a chair, which was improper and violated the bank's Customer First philosophy.

Issues

  • Whether the termination of employment was justified
  • Procedural fairness in the termination process

Reasoning

The court found that the claimant's actions violated the bank's Customer First philosophy and were in breach of the Employment Act. The termination was justified, and the procedural fairness was upheld.

Outcome

Affirmed

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Employment Act
  • Human Resource Policy
Cases cited (2)
  • Public Servants Association of SA on behalf of Khan v Tsabadi NO and Others (2012) 33 ILJ 2117 (LC)
  • Adera v Sukari Industries [2023] KECA 1086 (KLR)
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case