1. The Claimant through a Memorandum of Claim dated 8th June, 2020 pleaded inter alia: -
a) That the claimant was employed as a clerk (Direct Sales Staff) by a letter dated 2nd April 2007. She was offered permanent and pensionable terms by a letter dated 15th June 2011 and posted at Donholm branch. The claimant was confirmed by a letter dated 16th March 2012 to the position of bank clerk. LC/1.
b) That the claimant also received a commendation for disbursing loans totalling to Ksh. 9,025,000/= and being 1st in asset disbursement in the branch for the period 06lh October to November 15th 2010.
c) That on 06/12/2016, a customer by the name Martha Nkatha was depositing Ksh. 170,000/= to her account and presented a deposit slip of Ksh.170,000/=. The claimant counted the money and realised that it was Ksh. 180,000/= and informed the customer. The customer maintained that she had given Ksh. 170,000/=. Later in the day, the customer came back and complained that she had an extra Ksh. 40,000/= and in essence she had given the claimant Kes. 210,000/=. The claimant realised an extra Kes. 10,000/= after balancing and the same was deposited to the customer’s account. [ copy of the said deposit slip marked LC/4 pg 7-8.
d) That on the same day, a customer by Ivy Chepkoech also deposited Ksh. 28,500/= and withdrew Ksh. 15,000/= the following day before the claimant.
e) That on 9th December 2016, the claimant was issued with a show cause letter by the acting branch manager on allegations of diversion of funds belonging to Martha Nkatha and conflict of interest by depositing money to an account of her cousin using her user. The claimant replied to the show cause and denied any wrong doing as the transactions were done procedurally.
f) That on 11th January 2017, the claimant was issued with a show cause letter by the Director - Human Resources on allegations of diversion of creating a deficit of Ksh. 30,000/= to a customer, Martha Nkatha and irregular deposit of Ksh. 28,500/- and withdrawal of Ksh. 15,000/= in the absence of the customer. The claimant replied to the show cause by a letter dated 13th January 2017 and denied any wrong doing as the transactions were done procedurally,
g) That the claimant was called for a disciplinary hearing on 23/01/2017 by a letter dated 17/01/2017. She denied any wrong doing in the said allegations of loss of Kes. 30,000/= and the alleged irregular deposits and withdrawals.
h) That the claimant was terminated from employment on 05/02/2016 for alleged gross misconduct in that; “it was established that you committed a criminal offence against or substantial detriment of your employer’s property in that on 6th December 2016, misappropriated Kes. 30,000/= belonging to a bank customer, Martha Nkatha. It was established that you received cash deposit of Kshs. 210,000/= from bank customer, Martha Nkatha operating A/C NO. 01109406096901 at 17.07hrs and proceeded to deposit Kshs. 170,000/=/= into the customer's account and immediately noted that there was excess cash which you did not hand over to the customer. CCTV clip reviewed revealed that at 17:45hrs the customer came back to dispute the cash deposit and you informed the customer that the excess cash was Kshs. 10,000/= and not Kshs. 40,000/= as alleged by the customer and you proceeded to deposit the Kshs 10,000/= in the customer’s account. In order to conceal the excess cash, you had, you deposited Kshs. 28,500/= to A/C NO. 01108684183400 of Ivy Chebet at 17:47hrs being the excess cash which you defrauded the customer, Martha Nkatha. It was noted from the CCTV clips that as you made this cash deposit of Kshs. 28,500/= into ivy Chebet’s account, Ivy was not present in the bank but you were serving customer Martha Nkatha at that time and the cash deposit voucher was not signed by the customer Ivy Chebet, thereby making the cash deposit unprocedural.
i) Further, you made unauthorized cash withdrawal of Kshs. 15,000/= from A/C NO. 01108684183400 of Ivy Chebet on the following day on 7th December 2016 at 8:38am in the absence of the customer having served your first customer at 9:05:39 despite the fact that you are not an authorized signatory or agent of the account or without any authority. It has been established that you forged the customer’s signature as the signature appended on the cash withdrawal slip allegedly signed by Ivy Chebet was different from the customer’s specimen signature that is held in the bank’s system. In so doing, your actions as above contravened provisions of the Bank’s Operating Manual, Banks Staff Manual, Bank’s Business Code of Conduct and casts doubt on your integrity as a bank employee thereby occasioning loss of Kshs. 30,000/= to the bank.” The reasons advanced for termination are allegedly as per Clause A5 of the CBA.
j) That the claimant appealed against the termination on 17/02/2017 in that there was no ground to sustain the allegations of fraud and she exercised prudence and due diligence in serving the customer who was depositing Ksh, 170,000,00 as per the deposit slip.
2. The Claimant in the upshot prayed for the following against the Respondent;
i. The termination from employment was substantively and procedurally unfair/unlawful
ii. The claimant be reinstated without loss of benefits and or break in years of service.
iii. The claimant be paid twelve months gross salary compensation for suffering wrongful/unfair dismissal amounting to Kshs. 1,035,876/-
3. The Respondent in response filed its Response to the Memorandum of Claim and Counterclaim dated 25th February, 2021 and averred inter alia:-
i) In answer to paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim, the Respondent avers that on 6th December, 2016, its customer, one Martha Nkatha, [“the Customer”] made a deposit of Kshs.170,000/- into her account at Donholm Branch at about 17.07 hours through the claimant but by a mistake and/or an oversight, the cash amount given to the Claimant by the Customer was more by Kshs,40,000/-, full particulars whereof are well within the Claimant’s knowledge.
ii) The Respondent further avers that the Customer came back shortly thereafter when she realized her said mistake and/or oversight to demand for the excess sum of Kshs.40,000/- from the Claimant but the Claimant admitted having received an excess of Kshs. 10,000/- only. Subsequent to the Customer’s said demand and/or complain, the Claimant deposited into the Customer’s bank account the said sum of Kshs.10,000/- and thereby leaving the customer with a shortfall/deficit of Kshs.30,000/-, full particulars whereof are too within the Claimant’s knowledge.
iii) In further answer to paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claimant and in answer to paragraph 8 thereof, the Respondent avers that upon its said Customers complaint aforesaid, it embarked on an investigation to establish the authenticity or otherwise of the same and which investigation revealed through CCTV footages that at the time the customer was engaging the Claimant al about 17,45hours, the Claimant proceeded to post an entry and generate a cash deposit slip of Kshs.28,500/- from account No.01108684183400 of Ivy Chebet at 17:47 hours in the latter’s absence and from which account she made a withdrawal of Kshs, 15,000/- the following day, i.e. 7th December, 2016 again in the absence of the said Ivy Chebet, full particulars whereof are too within the Claimant’s knowledge.
iv) The averment contained at paragraphs 9,10,11 and 12 of the Statement of Claim are hereby admitted save that the Claimant’s Response to the Show cause letter was found unsatisfactory.
v) In further answer to paragraphs 9,10,11 and 12 of the Statement of Claim, the Respondent avers that although the Claimant had been informed of her right to be accompanied by a member of staff or a central union official at the disciplinary hearing vide the Respondent's letter of 17th January, 2017 inviting her for a disciplinary hearing, she attended the disciplinary hearing alone and whereof she was accorded an opportunity to defend herself. The Respondent further avers that after the disciplinary hearing; the Claimant was found guilty as charged.
vi) In answer to paragraph 17 of the Statement of Claim, the Respondent avers that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was procedural and in accordance with both the law and the terms of her employment. In the premises, the Claimant’s allegations therein to the contrary is vehemently denied and she is thus put to strict proof thereof.
vii) In further answer to paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Statement of Claim and in answer to the Claimant’s claim herein, the Respondent avers that the said action of the Claimant of concealing the excess sum of Kshs.40,000/- from the Customer only later on to disclose Kshs.10,000/- upon protest from the Customer and retaining the balance thereof of Kshs,30,000/- constituted an act of gross misconduct as stipulated in the Respondent’s Operations Manual, Business Code of Conduct and Ethics and also in the Employment Act, 2007, all of which provide for a summary dismissal. In the circumstances, the Claimant’s plea that she ought to have been given two warning letters before her termination is baseless and without any merits whatsoever.
viii) The Claimant in the Counterclaim (hereinbefore and hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”) reiterates paragraphs 1 to 19 of the Respondent’s Statement of Response herein and further reiterates that the Claimant (hereinbefore and hereinafter referred to as “the Claimant”) at the time of termination of her employment owed the Respondent a sum of Kshs. 1,995,355/- details of which are hereinafter set out, full particulars whereof arc well within the Claimant’s knowledge.
ix) The Respondent avers that in the course of the Claimant’s employment, it made and/or advanced to the Claimant various loan facilities on account of Furniture Loan, Personal Loan [FBT Int) house loan and Computer loan and in respect of which a sum of Kshs.243,320/-, Kshs.366,978/-, Kshs.1,354,507/- and Kshs.30,550/- respectively, all amount to Kshs. 1,995,355/- was due and owing at the time of her termination, full particulars of which are well within the Claimant’s knowledge.
x) The Respondent avers that the said loan facilities provided, inter alia, that upon termination of her employment, the same were to attract interest at commercial lending rate and which is now 12.5% p.a. Accordingly, the debt now due and owing from the Claimant in respect of the said loan facilities as at 18th February, 2021 stood at Kshs.3,013,396/- inclusive of interest as particularized hereunder; -
Kshs.
a) Furniture Loan A/C No, 016G5001877300 362,089.54
b) Personal Loan A/C No. 016G4001877300 44,673.91
c) Personal Loan A/C No, 016G4001877301 548,294.48
d) Residential Property Loan A/C No. 016G0001877300 2,024,706.95
e) Service Providers Pees A/C No. 01894001877300 33,631.00
xi) In view of the matters pleaded at the preceding paragraphs of the Response and the Counterclaim, the Respondent Counterclaims against the Claimant the said sum of Kshs. 3,013,396/- with interest at the said interest rate of 12,5%p.a. until full payment.
4. The Respondent in the upshot prayed that the claim be dismissed with costs and judgment entered on the Counterclaim for Kshs. 3,013,396/- and costs.
EVIDENCE
3. At the hearing on 29th October, 2024 the claimant informed the Court that she relied on her witness statement dated 8th June, 2020 as her evidence in chief. She also relied on her documents filed with the claim dated the same date as the witness statement.
4. In cross-examination, it was her evidence that she was employed in April, 2007 and in June 2011, she was confirmed to permanent and pensionable terms. It was her evidence that the incident took place in 2016 and that she could not remember when she started handling cash. She was serving at the Executive Centre. The Executive Centre was for members and were charged membership fees. Nonmembers could be served on authority of seniors.
5. It was her evidence that the Bank was fitted with CCTV cameras and that on 6th December, 2016, she served Martha Nkatha, a customer. She came to the Executive Centre with a deposit slip and cash. The money was in excess by Kshs. 10,000/-. She asked the customer if that was her money but she denied. According to the claimant, she then served the customer to her satisfaction and she left.
6. The claimant’s attention was drawn to Instruction to Tellers and Teller Services procedures and she confirmed that money from a customer must not be moved from the counter until confirmed with the customer. The money is thereafter posted and a slip printed out and the customer is given a copy. (Note: The CCTV capturing the incident was played in court). The claimant stated that she confirmed with the customer the amount and that she observed the rules as per the Cash Manual. She further stated that she was not supposed to mix the money she had and the customer’s until she confirmed with the customer. It was further her evidence that the customer came back after about 40 minutes and claimed the extra money was Kshs. 30,000/- and not 10,000/-. She did not inform her supervisor about the extra cash and that there was no other money on her work top. It was her evidence that she informed the customer of the extra cash but never gave the same back to her. She kept the money because the customer denied it was hers and that she did not post the extra cash in the customers account. She further stated that the customer left her phone number and asked her to call in case of anything.
7. The claimant further stated that she was aware the customer lodged a complaint with the Bank. She denied telling the customer that she was not sure if the money was hers or the customers. Concerning Ivy Chebet, it was her evidence that she deposited the account and that it was a different transaction. It was her evidence that Ivy was her niece and that she served her as a customer. After Nkatha left, a customer by the name Korir came with cash to deposit in Ivy’s account and further that she debited Ivy’s account. From the CCTV footage she confirmed that there was no customer standing before her when she served Korir and that Korir was not and executive customer.
8. She was issued with two show cause letters over the incident and she responded to both. It was further her evidence that Ivy was called by the Branch Manager and she said she was in Bomet. She served her in Donholm and that the withdrwal from Ivy’s account was done through ATM. The claimant confirmed that breach of regulations could lead to disciplinary action. She further stated that after responding to the show cause letter, she was invited to a disciplinary hearing which she attended and gave her version of events. She was thereafter issued with a termination letter. She admitted owing the bank in form of loans which she had not settled.
9. In re-examination she stated that the total amount was Kshs. 180,000/- and not Kshs. 210,000/-. She further clarified that Ivy was at the Executive Centre Donhom when she served her. Further, Ivy had an ATM card and was not aware who was holding it at the time.
10. The respondent called two witness. The first witness Mr. Duncan Wambugu who informed the court that he worked for the respondent as a Security Manager and that he recorded two witness statements. The first dated 26th April, 2021 and the second dated 5th July, 2023. He adopted the same as his evidence in chief. He also relied on the bundle of documents filed by the respondent in response to the claim. According to the witness, he investigated the matter. A customer came and gave out money for deposit into her account. The money was counted using the machine and two bundles went through signifying 200 hundred thousand shillings. Some money was left on the machine which the claimant put in her till. According to him the machine is programmed to count in batches of 100,000 hence the money was above Kshs. 200,000/-. It was his evidence that the credit to Ivy Chebet was done when Nkatha was before the claimant. He further stated that according to banking rules, the teller is supposed to serve the person in front of them and at this time only Nkatha was in front of the claimant. He asked the claimant for Korir’s number or address but she did not provide the same. Mr. Wabugu further stated that the debit to Ivy’s account was done in her absence. The customer whose account is to be debited should sign the banking slip. Further the slip for the deposit was not signed.
11. The claimant viewed Ivy’s image in the system without her. This meant the account was being transacted in her absence. He further stated that the signature on the withdrawal slip was way off the specimen signature held by the Bank. He interviewed the claimant who accepted that the signatures differ and that it was an oversight on her part as the transaction should not have passed. According to him, they viewed the CCTV footage with the claimant and he was keen to know who Korir, who was alleged to have deposited the money was and Ivy who withdrew the money. It was his evidence that the claimant did not follow banking procedures.
12. In cross-examination he stated that the customer did not leave immediately and that she filed a deposit slip for Kshs. 170,000/- and that the customer (Nkatha) was in front of the claimant when Kshs. 28,500/- was deposited in Ivy’s account.
13. The respondent’s second witness Ms. Leah Kerich informed the Court that she worked for the respondent as the Head of Employee Relations and that she was familiar with the matter before the Court. She recorded a statement on 4th August, 2024 which she adopted as her evidence in chief. According to her the claimant was accorded a fair hearing and that the respondent had a lawful reason for terminating the claimant’s service. In cross-examination she stated that the customer came with Kshs. 210,000/- and that she wanted to deposit Kshs. 170,000/-. It was her evidence that the customer did not fill the deposit slip but stated that she was not sure if money could be deposited without filling the deposit slip. According to her, she stated that the claimant said the money was extra by Kshs. 40,000/- and that the claimant at the close of business had no shortage or overage. Regarding the claimant’s house loan, she stated that the respondent sold the claimant’s property and that the claimant still owed the respondent some money.
CLAIMANTS’ SUBMISSIONS
14. Mr. Munoru for the claimant submitted that on 6th December, 2016, a customer by the name Martha Nkatha was depositing Kshs. 170,000/- in her account and presented a deposit slip with the money. The claimant counted the money and realised it was Kshs. 180,000/- and informed the customer of the excess but the customer maintained that she had given Kshs. 170,000/- and the claimant posted Kshs. 170,000/-. Later in the day the customer came back complaining that she had extra Kshs. 40,000/- and in essence she had given the claimant Kshs. 210,000/-. The claimant realised the extra Kshs. 10,000/- and after balancing her account, she deposited the extra Kshs. 10,000/- into the customer’s account. Mr. Munoru therefore submitted that the claimant could not be held accountable or accused of the alleged loss of Kshs. 30,000/- as the customer came to complain several hours later after she had left the Bank.
15. Concerning the deposit of Kshs. 28,500/-, counsel submitted that this was unrelated to Nkatha’s transaction. The deposit was done by a third party who was sitting within the Banking Hall as the claimant was an Executive Banking Teller. The withdrawal from Ivy’s account were procedural and executed by the customer. There was no forgery and the customer had not complained that her account had been tampered with. The allegation that the deposit was meant to conceal Kshs. 30,000/- was a conjecture since the respondent had not explained the difference of Kshs. 1,500/-.
16. Concerning the loan, Counsel submitted that the respondent sold the claimant’s house which was a security for the loans and the respondent had not accounted for the proceeds of the sale. The counterclaim was therefore mute and ought to be dismissed with costs. Counsel finally submitted that the court should find that the termination of the claimant’s employment was substantively and procedurally unfair and unlawful and that the claimant be reinstated to employment without loss of benefits and further that the claimant be awarded 12 month’s salary as compensation for unfair termination.
RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
17. Mr. Kimondo for the respondent on the other hand submitted that there was a valid reason for the termination of the claimant’s employment being misappropriation of Kshs. 30,000/- belonging to the respondent’s customer. According to counsel, upon review of the CCTV footage and which was played in Court, it was noted that the customer (Nkatha) had indeed deposited money with the claimant and that the claimant was seen running two full bundles of cash with the counting machine and that some notes were left over which implied she had received more than Kshs. 200,000/-. The evidence of DW1 to the Court was that the machine was programmed to count money in batches of Kshs. 100,000/-. Counsel further submitted that the CCTV footage revealed that there was no customer apart from Nkatha on 6th December, 2016 at 1747 hrs when the claimant credited Ivy Chebet’s account despite insistence by the claimant that the deposit was made by a Mr. Edward Korir. Mr. Kimondo further submitted that the CCTV footage of the next day showed the claimant while by herself printing a withdrawal slip from the account of the said Ivy Chebet who the claimant claimed withdrew the money by herself. Further, the specimen signatures of the said Ivy Chebet and the signature on the withdrawal slip differed. A fact which the claimant acknowledged.
18. Counsel there urged the Court to conclude that it was established that the claimant had received Kshs. 210,000/- from the customer and tried to hide it by depositing the sum of Kshs. 28,500/- into the account of Ivy Chebet who was her relative. These actions, it was submitted amounted to acts of gross misconduct contrary to the staff manual.
19. Regarding the process of termination, counsel submitted that the claimant was issued with a show cause letter on 11th January, 2017 to which she responded on 13th January, 2017 denying the charges levelled against her. Which response was found unsatisfactory. The claimant was subsequently invited by a letter dated 17th January, 2017 to appear before the respondent’s Disciplinary Hearing Panel on 23rd January, 2017.
20. Relying on the case of Kenya Revenue Authority vs. Reuwel Waithaka Gitahi & 2 Others [2019] KECA 300 (KLR), Counsel submitted that the respondent had provided sufficient evidence on a balance of probabilities to demonstrate that the claimant was guilty of misappropriating customer’s funds and making a false entry by forging a customer’s signature resulting in a fraudulent activity and financial loss to the respondent.
21. Regarding procedure for termination, counsel submitted that the claimant was issued with a show cause letter asking her to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against her. She responded and the response was found unsatisfactory by the respondent. She was therefore asked to appear before the Bank’s disciplinary panel for a hearing accompanied by a member of staff of her choice or a union official. At the hearing the claimant was given an opportunity to be heard but the respondent considered her responses unsatisfactory and issued her with a termination letter dated 14th February, 2017. The claimant appealed the termination by a letter date 17th February, 2017 but the appeal was unsuccessful. This was communicated to the claimant by a letter dated 2nd March, 2017. Relying on the case of Postal Corporation of Kenya vs. K. Tanui [2019] eKLR, counsel submitted that the termination was procedurally fair as the claimant was accorded an opportunity to be heard.
22. Regarding the counterclaim, counsel submitted that the respondent submitted evidence in form of loan application forms, loan statements and loan repayment through salary deduction to demonstrate the claimant’s indebtedness to the respondent in the sum of Kshs. 3,013,396/-. Counsel urged the court to note that the claimant did not dispute the loan amounts and did not provide evidence showing she had been servicing the loans. In the circumstances the respondent had proved the claimant’s indebtedness to the respondent.
23. Regarding reliefs sought by the claimant, counsel submitted that the termination was fair hence the claimant was not entitled to the reliefs sought and they ought to be dismissed with costs.
DETERMINATION
24. The Court has reviewed and considered the pleadings, testimonies by witnesses and submissions by both counsel in support and opposition to this case. The Court has also considered authorities relied on by counsel and is of the view that the issues for determination are:-
a) Whether the respondent had valid and justifiable reasons for terminating the claimant’s employment and if the termination was carried out through a fair procedure.
b) If the Court comes to the finding that the termination and the process was unfair, what reliefs are the claimant entitled to?
c) Is the respondent entitled to judgment on the counterclaim?
Whether the respondent had valid and justifiable reasons for terminating the claimant’s employment and if the termination was carried out through a fair procedure.
25. The accusations against the claimant were well set out in the pleadings, evidence and submissions. A Customer by the name Martha Nkatha visited the respondent bank to deposit some money being Kshs. 170,000/-. She filed the deposit slip and handed over a bundle of currency to the claimant who claimed she counted the same using money counting machine and found that the actual amount was Kshs. 180,000/- and that she asked the said Ms. Nkatha if the extra cash was hers but she insisted that she only had Kshs. 170,000/- to deposit. The claimant, according to her then put the extra cash together with the Kshs. 170,000/- in her till and posted the transaction and the customer left the Bank.
26. Ms. Nkatha returned to the Bank after some time complaining that the bundle of cash she gave to the claimant was Kshs. 210,000/- and that claimant therefore retained Kshs. 30,000/- instead of Kshs. 10,000/-. According to the claimant, she balanced her books at the close of the day and deposited the extra Kshs. 10,000/- into Nkatha’s account. Pausing here, the allegations by Ms. Nkatha would remain incredible having at first denied when asked by the claimant that the extra Kshs.10,000/- was hers. Secondly, she left the Bank’s premises after depositing the Kshs. 170,000/- only to return later claiming she handed over to the claimant Kshs.210,000/- hence demanding Kshs. 30,000/-. It is difficult to account for the time between when Ms. Nkatha left the Bank and when she returned. No one knows where she went and the people she interacted with. It would therefore on this evidence alone be unfair to ascribe the loss if at all of Kshs. 20,000/- on the claimant.
27. The claimant’s conduct contemporaneous to this incident however raises questions over her integrity and responsibility towards the respondent as a Teller handling money on behalf of the respondent. Her conduct despite gaps in Nkatha’s allegations made them more probable than not. On the same day of the incident, at around 1747 hrs the claimant was captured on the CCTV camera depositing some money into what turned out to be Ivy Chebet’s account. The amount deposited was later established to be Kshs. 28,500/- which was not denied by the claimant. The claimant further informed the investigators and the Court that Ivy was her niece. The money, according to the claimant was brought for deposit by one Edward Korir.
28. Whereas the claimant acknowledged that according to the Bank’s regulations, she was supposed to serve the customer before her, the CCTV footage played to the Court did not show this Edward Korir either in the Banking hall or before the claimant. Further, it was curious to note that the following day at around 8:38 am the claimant debited Ivy’s account with what turned out to be the sum of Kshs. 15,000/-. According to the respondent’s witness (RW1), the said Ivy Chebet neither filled and signed the withdrawal slip nor appeared personally before the claimant to perform the transaction as required by the Bank regulations. Further that the signature on the withdrawal slip was visibly different from the specimen held by the Bank.
29. In the Court’s view, the conduct of the claimant during this incident did not tally with the sensitive position she was entrusted with by the respondent of handling money where trust and integrity rule. Besides, the claimant after this incident was issued with a show cause letter to which she responded. The matter was escalated to a disciplinary hearing which she also attended and defended herself albeit unsuccessfully as her service was thereafter terminated. She ultimately filed this claim. The matter concerned loss of a job and a taint in her career as a Banker. It is therefore difficult to understand why the claimant did not call her niece Ivy and Mr. Korir to give evidence in support of her allegations now that they appeared to be persons she well knew.
30. From the foregoing, the court is persuaded that the respondent had valid and justifiable reasons to terminate the claimant’s employment and further that the termination was carried out through a fair procedure.
31. Concerning the counterclaim, the Court has been reasonably persuaded that the claimant during her employment took loans which she is obligated to repay in terms provided in the loan application forms. The claimant did not dispute the Counterclaim. The respondent is therefore entitled to judgment as prayed in the counterclaim.
32. In conclusion, the claim herein is found without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs while the respondent’s counterclaim is found merited and the Court enters judgment as prayed.
33. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this ……… day of…………. 2025
Delivered virtually this……… day of ………….2025
Abuodha Nelson Jorum
Presiding Judge-Appeals Division