A former KCB boss, who was sacked over false allegations that he misled the lender's executive committee regarding financial claims of the its cards operations, has won his lawsuit against the bank for unlawful termination.
Roy Sylvester Akala has been awarded Sh9.3 million by the Employment and Labour Relations Court as compensation for seven months’ salary for the unfair dismissal.
Justice Christine Baari on Friday found that, based on the evidence presented in court, Mr Akala was not guilty of the allegations levelled against him by the bank. Additionally, the bank did not provide reasonable, fair and justified grounds upon which to sustain that belief.
"I note from the evidence before court that the forensic report that formed the basis of the termination of the claimant’s contract did not recommend disciplinary action against the claimant. The bank’s witnesses were unanimous that the report did not at all implicate the claimant in any way whatsoever," said the judge in the decision issued on June 13, 2025.
Mr Akala, who was Director of Operations Management, was dismissed in September 2018 for allegedly causing financial losses to the bank through card operations under his supervision.
He sued, and his lawyer, Kent Omondi, informed the court that Mr Akala had not been given the full forensic audit report on which his dismissal was based, and that the document implicated other people, not the claimant.
Forensic audit
Three witnesses, who testified on behalf of the bank, absolved Mr Akala of any wrongdoing, pointing out that his name did not feature in the forensic report.
Justice Baari added that the termination of the contract was fundamentally flawed and grossly fell short of the dictates of the employment laws because he was never informed of his right to be represented or accompanied by a fellow employee or union representative during the disciplinary hearing.
The bank had told the court that, at the time of his performance review, the manager had fraudulently indicated that there were no outstanding claims with respect to the card operations, which were under his supervision.
It added that he made other false representations before the bank’s executive committee regarding the card operations.
The bank stated that during the course of its annual routine audit on March 31, 2018, various issues were highlighted with regard to a suspense account for a Mastercard, as well as fraudulent transactions amounting to Sh1.47 million.
The bank commissioned an internal forensic audit of card operations under Mr Akala's supervision and management and requested him to prepare a report explaining the unreconciled items.
Initial findings revealed that losses had been incurred through fraudulent dealings in an elaborate scheme where claims were not made within the set timeframes.
The audit also confirmed that overdue items had been presented as current by manipulating the system to show overdue card transaction claims as current, a process referred to as “greening” or “refreshing.”
The bank blamed Mr Akala for the lapses highlighted in the audit report, which resulted in losses amounting to hundreds of millions of shillings. He was subsequently dismissed.
The lender stated that the grounds for the termination were a lack of oversight of the operations unit and a failure to develop and implement the proper mechanisms required under the job description to prevent operational loss.
However, during cross-examination by Mr Akala's lawyer, the bank's leading witness stated that the forensic audit report named two individuals as responsible for the reconciled items and that the losses were attributed to someone else, not to the claimant.
The second witness told court that Mr Akala had not been interviewed during the forensic investigation.
The witness further stated that the forensic report did not specifically attribute the losses to Mr Akala, nor did it make any adverse recommendations against him.
Additionally, no action was recommended against him in the report.
The third witness informed the court that Mr Akala had not signed the minutes of the disciplinary hearing and had not been accompanied by a witness.
The witness also confirmed that the claimant’s name did not feature in the forensic audit report.
