How false information in the CV jeopardised a Senior Banker's employment

James WaNjeri-Employment Lawyer

Honesty is the best policy, and especially in the workplace, its importance cannot be overstated. Any proper business will have honesty and integrity as one of its core values. American business magnate and billionaire Warren Buffett, while speaking to graduate students at the Business School of Columbia University, stated, “In looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And, if they don't have the first, the other two will kill you…Pick the kind of person to work for you that you want to marry your son or daughter. You won’t go wrong.”

During the recruitment process, employers will share a vacancy advertisement with the minimum qualifications required for the role. What happens when an employee supplies false information, secures the role, and the employer only discovers after the fact? The case of Adhiambo v Bank of Africa Kenya Limited [2025] KEELRC 3695 (KLR) delivered on 19th December 2025 by Justice Rika of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, dealt with this exact situation, but with a twist.

Adhiambo was an employee of Consolidated Bank. During her tenure at the bank, she was employed as an Operations Officer. Sometime in 2011, she became the Branch Operations Manager, but in an acting capacity. She ceased acting as Branch Operations Manager in February 2012 and resumed her previous role as Operations Officer. In October 2012, the Bank of Africa (BOA) advertised for a vacant Operations Manager role, which she applied for and was interviewed. Her CV, which was used to apply for the job, stated that she was a Branch Operations Manager in October 2012. She presented the resume to her new employer on 3rd December 2012, when she secured the job. She did not clarify to BOA that she was no longer acting as Operations Manager when interviewed.

She emerged as the successful candidate and was eventually appointed as the Branch Service Manager, earning a monthly gross salary of Kshs. 162,750.

Following routine inspection and verification of staff records, discrepancies were discovered with regard to her certificate of service from her previous Employer. Her CV had discrepancies like:-
i. The CV submitted before employment in November 2012, stated that her last position at Consolidated Bank, as at November 2012, was Branch Operations Manager.
ii. The certificate of service issued by Consolidated Bank to the Claimant indicated her last position was Operations Officer.

iii. Though she had acted as an Operations Manager, she misrepresented to the new employer during her interview that she was a substantive Branch Operations Manager.

To distinguish the two roles, an Operations Officer reports to a Manager and supervises staff at the entry level. An Operations Manager reports to the Head of Department, leads and supervises Officers, and other staff at entry levels. The positions were different. She was summoned for a disciplinary hearing on the charge of procuring employment and a substantive position with the Bank irregularly. A decision was reached to summarily dismiss her on 8th July 2015, and communicated in a letter dated 9th July 2015.

The Employer also made a counterclaim against her. The employee had been advanced a mortgage facility of Kshs. 2,850,000; personal loan of Kshs. 1,098,597; and
a personal loan of Kshs. 400,000. The loan balance stood at Kshs. 1,921,279 as at 2nd August 2017. With the accrued interest, the loan balance was reworked in the counterclaim for the sum of Kshs. 6,359,813. (A counterclaim is a legal claim filed by a defendant against a claimant in an existing lawsuit, rather than a separate suit, aimed at offsetting or reducing the claimant’s original claim. It essentially acts as a lawsuit within a lawsuit, allowing the defendant to seek damages against the Claimant.)

Employee’s Case

Adhiambo claimed that the CV she presented to the Bank indicated that she was Acting Operations Manager, and not the substantive Operations Manager at Consolidated Bank. Upon employment, she supplied BOA with a certificate of service
issued by Consolidated Bank, showing that she was employed as an Operations Officer. Her case was that BOA employed her not because of the previous job
titles, but because she was competent.

While she denied every allegation in the Counterclaim, she pleaded that she faced financial challenges in paying her loan after termination. She conceded that the only balance at the time of termination was Kshs. 2,532,042. The Bank auctioned her
property for a sum of Kshs 2,200,000, way below the market value. Alternatively, she pleaded that her outstanding loan as at 2nd August 2017 was Kshs. 1,921,279, which was a nonperforming loan, and the Bank could not claim the staggering loan balance at Kshs. 6,359,813, under the in duplum rule.

(Established by Section 44A of the Banking Act, the in duplum rule caps the total interest and costs recoverable on a non-performing loan at the amount of the outstanding principal. It prohibits the total interest from exceeding the principal when the loan is 90 days in default.)

Employer’s case

The Bank’s witness, the Head of HR, stated that Adhiambo was issued with a contract of employment on 6th November 2012, which she executed on 3rd December 2012. The offer was based on the documents she submitted in her application. She signed a declaration form on the same date. She declared that the information supplied was correct and that if the information was found to be false, action could be taken against her under the Penal Code, the Employment Act, the Human Resource Manual, and the Contract.

There were discrepancies in her job application. She told the Bank that she held the position of Branch Operations Manager at her previous Employer yet she was a Branch Operations Officer. The Bank was looking for a Manager. The banking sector operates on trust and integrity, and it involves clients’ funds. Furthermore, Managers and Officers were different roles. She was taken through a disciplinary hearing in May 2015, which extended into June. During the disciplinary hearing, she explained to the disciplinary committee that the discrepancy was a result of a genuine error.

She had secured mortgage and loan facilities with the Bank. She had not cleared her loan obligations at the time of dismissal. The mortgage was secured through her property at Thika. The personal loans were not secured. The counterclaim in the sum of approximately Kshs. 6.3 million, took into account what was recovered after the sale of her property. The bank’s head of HR, who was the witness, also confirmed that Adhiambo did not have any warnings or evidence of poor performance while she worked as Operations Manager. The Bank sold her property in 2020, and recovered about Kshs. 2.2 million, which was accounted for in the counterclaim. HR did not have the valuation report on the Claimant’s property. She was not aware that it was valued at about Kshs. 4.4 million. Her loan balance on termination was Kshs. 3.9 million. Her terminal dues at Kshs. 238,000, was not enough to offset the loan. She did not challenge the sale of her property.

Court’s Determination

Did the bank have a valid reason to terminate the employee? The Court began by noting that it was the circumstances leading to her employment that resulted in
the termination of her contract. Though she was a manager in an acting capacity at the time she was interviewed, 6 months later, in October 2012, she had reverted to her role as Operations Officer at Consolidated Bank. But she presented herself to the BOA as having been Branch Operations Manager at the time of the interview. Her resume supplied to BOA indicated that her last position with the previous Employer was Branch Operations Manager.

The Judge noted that “She told the Court that she made a genuine error, which the Court does not think is a persuasive explanation.” The Court considered that even after she secured a contract of employment, she signed a declaration form declaring the documents and information supplied to the Bank to be correct. To the Court, “Her explanation that she did not lie, but that she made a genuine mistake, is unacceptable, in light of this voluntarily executed declaration. She signed a code of conduct and ethics on 3rd December 2012, committing to uphold honesty and professionalism, in her dealings The Claimant was clearly in breach of her obligation of trust and confidence, in an industry where these values are the cornerstones of an employer-employee relationship. She procured a managerial position with the Respondent, by false pretences. There was valid reason, justifying termination of the Claimant’s contract, under Section 43 and 45 of the Employment Act”. Her claim for unfair termination was therefore rejected by the Court.

However, the Court came to her aid with regard to the outstanding loan in the counterclaim. The Court began by noting that in the notification for sale, the amount claimed by the Bank from a counterclaim of Kshs. 1,921,279 as of August 2017, was now Kshs. 5,964, 057, barely 6 months later as of 27th February 2018. In preparation of the sale, the bank carried out a valuation of the employee’s property. The property was given an open market value of Kshs. 4,500,000, and forced sale value of Kshs. 3,375,000. The Judge noted that “the Respondent proceeded to sell her property through action, at Kshs. 2.2 million, a pittance, and way below the valuation stated by the Valuer appointed by the Respondent. One would have expected the loan obligation to have significantly reduced upon recovery of Kshs. 2.2. million through auction, from the
amount counterclaimed as at August 2017, at Kshs. 1,921,279. The deficiency balance after the auction, cannot have resulted in the amount counterclaimed, even taking into account accrued interest, at the punitive commercial rates. How is it that 3 years later, and after recovery of Kshs. 2.2 million, the outstanding loan was Kshs. 6,359,813, as of 17th September 2020, more than triple the sum counterclaimed, of Kshs.1,921, 279, in August 2017? The Claimant lost her job, her salary and terminal dues, as well as her property. What more must she lose, to be deemed to have satisfied her obligation to the Respondent? …A line must be drawn between legitimate banking, and loan sharking.”

With that, the Counterclaim was found to be unproven, and it was rejected by the Court.

Conclusion

How you get into employment matters as much as what will keep you within the employment. Relying on misrepresentation and false information will nullify the recruitment, and employers are within their rights to terminate such an employee. Of course, it goes without saying that the proper procedures must be followed. When conducting background checks, employers are bound by the law and should ensure that the information-gathering process is not tainted with illegalities.