When career accountant Kevin Isika Mule approached two of the
senior-most directors at Housing Finance with information of undisclosed
bad loans amounting to Sh4.3 billion, he thought he was about to save
the mortgage lender from huge losses and a public relations disaster.
LAMENTATIONS
Instead,
Mr Isika’s reward for blowing the whistle on non-compliance in credit,
risk, financial reporting, corruption, malpractice, malfeasance,
conflicts of interest and inefficiency at the lender, was sacking in a
manner no employee would ever wish to experience.
At
the time, Mr Isika was HFC’s director of credit risk and was on a
monthly salary of Sh1.16 million. Six months ago, the High Court awarded
Mr Isika Sh8.9 million as compensation for unlawful termination.
In
reaching the final award, Justice Ongaya said he had considered Mr
Isika’s whistle-blowing and how it turned against the former HFC
employee.
“The court has considered
the claimant’s unchallenged lamentations about the respondent’s
non-compliance with statutory and regulatory provisions as reported by
him to the respondent’s management, leading to his predicament, and
which factor aggravates the respondent’s action to dismiss the
claimant,” the judge ruled. Mr Isika had in the course of 2015 and 2016
revealed to HF Group managing director Frank Ireri and HFC managing
director Sam Waweru that the latter risked losing Sh4.3 billion in bad
loans, some of which had been issued irregularly.
GRIEVANCES
HFC
is a subsidiary of the HF Group, which also has interests in insurance
and real estate and runs a foundation that aims to train one million
artisans in the informal sector.
On
Friday June 17, 2016, Mr Isika was asked to meet his boss Mr Waweru at
the Serena Hotel at 6pm. He naturally thought that the meeting would
outline the next course of action in the wake of the revelations over
the bad loans.
But at the meeting, Mr
Waweru handed him a notice to show cause why he should not be fired for
failing to apologise for grievances raised by debt management staff,
failure to hire a valuer as instructed by Mr Ireri a year earlier and
reporting to work late and leaving early without permission.
He
was also accused of absenteeism. Mr Isika was also ordered to respond
to the letter by the following Monday at 8.30am. The only problem was
that he had already been locked out of the HFC system.
RANSACKED
On
deadline day, the banker again tried to complete his response and
submit it but was still locked out of the system so he decided to go to
the lender’s headquarters and deliver it in person.
His
access card had also been deactivated and rumours were already flying
that he was on interdiction. On arrival, Mr Isika found his office
locked and it had been ransacked. He was met by two human resource
department officers who had scheduled a disciplinary hearing for noon
the same day. A new charge had also been introduced — failing to respond
to the show cause letter within the prescribed timeline. After failing
to convince the HFC board of his predicament, Mr Isika sued the lender
and claimed he had been sacked on June 20, 2016, but had not been given a
termination letter.
Mr Isika claims
to have received the termination letter in December, half a year later,
but HFC insisted that it sent the letter on June 21, 2016 via email and
post.
In court, HFC accused Mr Isika
of forum shopping. The mortgage lender argued that Mr Isika could not
sue because he still had a pending appeal before the HFC board hence the
suit was an abuse of the court process.
CLAIMANT
HFC
said Mr Isika was sacked on June 21, 2016 after failing to respond to
the show-cause letter and ignoring the disciplinary hearing.
Justice
Ongaya held that HFC’s action could not be considered to be
constructive termination. He ruled that HFC acted unfairly by not giving
Mr Isika a genuine chance to respond to his charges.
“The
court finds that taking into account the magnitude of the allegations
in the show-cause notice, the claimant was entitled to lament that the
weekend allowed to reply was not sufficient.
“When
Monday June 20, 2016 came, the invitation for hearing was made and the
claimant was not given ample time to prepare and to attend. There was no
room provided in the invitation for the claimant to attend with a
colleague of his choice as per section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007.
ALLEGATIONS
“The
court holds that an employer should offer an employee a genuine chance
by way of a notice and a hearing as per section 41 of the Act, failing
which it cannot be presumed that the employee is culpable of the
allegations for which no such genuine opportunity was provided. The
termination was unfair in substance and procedure and the court finds
accordingly,” Justice Ongaya held.
The
judge held that Mr Isika was entitled to six months’ pay of Sh6.82
million and one month’s salary in lieu of notice (of termination).
Justice Ongaya also ordered that Mr Isika be paid for the 20 days worked in June, 2016 at Sh814,587.
No comments:
Post a Comment