The Lower Eastern Times Opening The Third Eye
Related Articles
The High Court in Mombasa has overturned a Sh5 million compensation previously granted to a former assistant officer at the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK).
Naaman Ndege, who had been seconded to Imperial Bank Limited while it was under receivership, had removed a television set, a colour printer and a coffee maker from the bank’s Likoni branch, court records show.
Click here to join our WhatsApp Channel
An IT audit conducted in May 2018 flagged the items as missing. Ndege maintained that he had taken them for repairs, saying he was authorised to approve expenses below Sh10,000 and had delivered the items to technicians at Kongowea market.
However, the items were later found at his residence. He explained that after the repair stalls were demolished, he moved them to his Kiembeni home for safekeeping.
CBK disputed his account, arguing that he failed to follow official asset movement procedures, did not inform the regional manager and kept the items at his house even while on leave.
After the bank reported the matter to police, Ndege was charged with theft and handling stolen property. In May 2019, he was acquitted under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code after a magistrate ruled the prosecution had not established a sufficient case.
He subsequently filed a suit against CBK and the Attorney General, accusing them of malicious prosecution and claiming the issue should have been handled internally through human resource channels. A magistrate awarded him Sh5 million in general damages and Sh150,000 in special damages, criticising the evidence against him as weak.
CBK appealed the decision, and on February 20, High Court Judge Jairus Ngaah nullified the award in full.
The judge outlined the requirements for proving malicious prosecution, including demonstrating that the case was initiated without reasonable cause and was driven by malice. He found that CBK had merely reported missing property to police, who conducted independent investigations before the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to press charges.
The court also noted Ndege’s admission that he had taken the items and his written apology expressing regret over his actions.
Given that the items were discovered in his home and proper procedures had not been followed, the judge ruled that the bank acted within its rights in reporting the matter.
Ndege’s lawsuit was dismissed, and he was directed to bear the costs of the appeal.
