How background check cost ex-Equity Bank's staff plum job

For 16 years, Bernard Okoth Ambasa diligently built a career both as a civil servant and in the private sector, which culminated in  Equity Bank offering him a plum job that would have earned him Sh950,000 a month.

He would, however, soon regret his career move following the termination of his contract by the bank.

He claimed that on December 9, last year, Equity’s Associate Director for Human Resources Dr Dorcas Kioi, alerted him that the group’s Human Resources Director David Ssegawa had informed her that the lender was looking for a general manager, employee relations.

Kioi, who was Okoth's former colleague at the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), asked him if he was interested in the position.

In his case, before Justice Byrum Ongaya, he narrated that he passed on his credentials to Kioi and was invited for the first interview by the bank 10 days later.

On January 15 this year, he was invited for a second interview, where he was offered Sh950,000 as a consolidated salary.

Okoth was issued an offer letter dated January 30, 2025, which he accepted on February 10, 2025.

Later, Kioi verbally informed him that a background check found that there was whistleblower information from the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) and the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) on him.

According to Okoth, Kioi gave him only one option - to resign so that Equity could not fire him.

He argued that although his former colleague raised concerns, she did not reveal who the whistleblower was or give him the alleged information against him.

He said a meeting called on April 4 this year, which was allegedly meant to discuss the said whistleblower report, ended in his sacking.

Okoth accused the bank of treating him in a "discriminatory, malicious and undignified manner."

He lamented that Equity called him from consultancy practice, where he declined several consulting jobs, only to terminate his employment and stain his sterling HR career.  

In their response, Kio admitted that Okoth had been offered the job after he showed interest in the position.

Kioi said she did not guarantee him of being recruited as the plum job had a caveat that there ought to have been internal processes, which included probation and a successful background search.

The court heard that all Equity employees are required to declare all business interests they have, and leaving out or giving false information would lead to disciplinary action.

Equity stated that since Okoth was a general manager, he was subject to screening.

According to Equity, Kioi instructed Spectrum Network International to do Okoth’s background check. The lender stated that it revealed that he was a director at Yarrow Spa and Barber Shop, Dokam Travels and Roekam Executive Barbers and Spa.

According to the bank, Okoth did not reveal the information on the form he filed on February 10, 2025.

The court heard that he only disclosed two businesses: Resourcing and People Management Ltd and Grand Dominion Ltd.

“With the banking industry being a sensitive sector, all employees and potential employees are supposed to be above suspicion like Caesar’s wife, and any suspicion of dishonesty and integrity issues leads to automatic separation,” argued the bank.

It asserted that Okoth’s probation period for the new job was to end on April 8, 2025, hence he was bound by the terms that he signed.

The lender also argued that it was not to blame for his leaving a consultancy job as he willingly opted to join employment.

In his rejoinder, Okoth argued that Dokam was not associated with him. He further argued that Yarrow Spa and Barber Shop and Roekam Executive Barber and Spa ceased operations in 2022, and, therefore, saw no reason to disclose the information.

He argued that Kioi had informed him that the reason for termination was information from KRA and CBK, his former employers.

Justice Ongaya sided with Equity and dismissed Okoth’s case. He said the background check was part of the recruitment process and not a disciplinary process.

“The Court has considered that the respondents belatedly disclosed in court the particulars of the outcome of the background checks, showing in particular that the petitioner was a director of Dokam Travels even during the subsistence of the petition. But for the belated disclosure, it could be that the petitioner might not have filed the petition. In that consideration and all circumstances of the case, each party to bear their own costs of the petition,” said Justice Ongaya.