How television, printer, coffee maker cost top bank manager his job

Naaman Ndege, an Imperial Bank Receiver Manager was fired by Kenya Central Bank (CBK) in 2018 for allegedly removing from the bank’ branch premises a 54’ inch Samsung TV, 1 Colour Printer and 1 Coffee Maker unlawfully.

The CBK accused Ndege of taking the said items to his house in Kiembeni from Imperial Bank Likoni while purporting to transfer them to the Kizingo Branch.

CBK said that Ndege moved the items without disclosing to CBK or the Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC) Regional Manager.

The Bank said Ndege did not obtain and sign the Imperial Bank Official Asset Movement Forms prior to removing the impugned items from the bank but generated his own forms which he used to unlawfully remove the Items from the bank.

Ndege had been employed by CBK as an assistant bank officer and was seconded to Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC) and deployed to Imperial Bank Limited, Likoni Branch in Mombasa which was under receivership as a bank’s receiver manager

Ndege was arrested and charged with stealing and handling stolen goods but was acquitted by Principal Magistrate Gathogo Sogomo for lack of evidence.

Sogomo found as a fact that Ndege actually took the items to his house but held that the criminal intent, mens rea, was lacking.

Further the magistrate proceeded to award Ndege Sh5 million against CBK for wrongful prosecution.

He also awarded Ndege Sh150,000 as special damages on account of legal expenses incurred.

While awarding damages, the Magistrate noted that Ndege was in the management cadre of CBK and that he lost his career and “its trappings” and had to contend with stigma and humiliation associated with “being frogmarched to the police station” and “dragged to court like a common rascal to answer to false and malicious charges.

Ndege also filed a case before the Employment and Labour court for wrongful termination, which is yet to be concluded.

However, the High court set aside the Sh5 million award after CBK appealed the said award.

Justice Jairus Ngaah said that all CBK did was report the missing items to the police and that it was the Director of Public Prosecution who decided to prosecute Ndege.

Justice Ngaah said that the prosecution of Ndege was not an abuse of court process neither was it without reasonable and probable cause or maliciously instituted.

“The appellant (KCB) cannot be said to be responsible for the DPP’s decision to prosecute the 1st respondent (Ndege) and, for this reason, no action would lie against the appellant for malicious prosecution,” said Justice Ngaah.

Justice Ngaah said the trial court ought to have determined whether CBK was justified to report to the police and if the DPP was justified in arraigning and charging Ndege with theft.

According to Ndege’s defence and reply to CBK’ demand letter, he took the subject items in good faith for repairs with a view to returning them immediately they were repaired.

Ndege said the delay to return them was occasioned by his annual leave upcountry.

He informed the panel that if given time about half an hour, he shall avail the items.

However, he was put in a van and taken to his house where the items were collected.

Ndege said the items ended up at his house when the stalls at Kongowea Market where the repairer was based were demolished.

“I had anticipated returning them immediately but the fundi after repairing dropped them at my residence. I also wish to inform you that the state of shock that I was in contributed to the mix up of items thus they ended up picking the wrong one. Sir, I am very remorseful and highly regret my action and hereby promise you that this will never happen again,” Read Ndege’s reply to CBK.

Ndege told the court that there were internal disciplinary procedures that CBK could have employed to discipline him rather than prosecute him.

He said that as a result of the criminal case, he lost his job and had to dispose of his property for his family upkeep and education of his children.

Ndege said that in his capacity as the receiver manager, he had authority to incur expenses not exceeding Sh10,000 and that based on that authority, he removed from the bank the said electronic items, ostensibly for repairs.

He said that in his estimation, the cost of repairs of these items was not more than Sh10,000, and the removal of these items was recorded at the security desk at the bank’s entrance.

The CBK only learnt of its missing properties after one of its officers in the IT department, Mahommed Abubakar, noticed a television set which had all along been mounted on the wall, at Imperial Bank Limited, Likoni branch, was missing.

Abubakar brought this information to the attention of CBK’s officers in Mombasa and upon an audit the items were found missing.