Two cases involving KCB Bank Kenya have recently attracted public attention for very different reasons, but both raise questions about how one of Kenya’s biggest financial institutions handles people when relationships with employees or customers deteriorate.
The first involves the late Rosemary Koech, who served as KCB’s Head of Data Protection before her death in August 2026. The second involves businessman Powel Ochieng Oyugi, who says his once-promising business collapsed after a dispute involving international payments, loans, rent and the auctioning of business equipment.
Rosemary’s workplace concerns
Rosemary’s death triggered debate about workplace pressure after allegations emerged from people claiming to be familiar with the working environment at KCB.
Questions were raised about bullying, excessive workloads, treatment of employees and the systems available to workers experiencing psychological distress.
Her family has, however, publicly defended KCB and distanced itself from claims blaming the bank for Rosemary’s death.
That position is important because there has been no finding establishing that the institution or any of its employees caused her death. Still, questions about the working environment at the bank eventually reached Parliament.
The late KCB employee Rosemary Koech. Photo/Screengrab
Senator Hamida Kibwana sought answers from the Senate Committee on Labour and Social Welfare over the circumstances surrounding Rosemary’s death and the measures available to employees facing workplace harassment, bullying or intimidation.
The senator also sought information on whether authorities had investigated possible psychosocial hazards within the workplace and whether employees could confidentially report concerns involving senior managers without fear of retaliation.
Those questions deserve proper responses because employee welfare should not become an issue only after tragedy occurs.
Rosemary’s personal writings, some of which were shared by her sister during her funeral service, also showed that she had been going through a difficult period. She wrote about feeling betrayed, used and undervalued, alongside other personal and financial struggles.
Powel’s business collapse
Powel’s dispute with KCB raises a different set of questions involving banking transactions, business financing, rent and the eventual loss of equipment he says was worth more than Ksh1 million.
According to his account, Powel travelled to India to buy fabric worth about Ksh5.92 million for his company, Powel Jea Enterprise Limited. He says he paid an initial Ksh2 million before arranging further payments through KCB after returning to Kenya.
The businessman says difficulties later emerged with some of the international payments, leaving his Indian supplier unable to access part of the money.
Powel claims the resulting dispute affected his ability to bring the fabric into Kenya, disrupted his business operations and eventually left the company struggling to meet its financial obligations.
His account has since been amplified publicly by philanthropist Ndungu Nyoro, who has shared details of the dispute and appealed to Kenyans to help the businessman rebuild his business.
Powel has also raised questions about his business premises and equipment, claiming that auctioneers eventually removed machinery and other assets after he fell behind on rent.
A building entrance with a KCB Group signage. Photo: The Star Source: Facebook
What does KCB say?
This is where KCB’s response becomes important.
The allegations involving Powel have circulated widely and contain specific claims about international payments, money allegedly returned to his account, the servicing of his loan, rental charges and the eventual removal of business equipment.
Questions surrounding Rosemary’s working environment have also attracted public discussion and parliamentary attention.
Yet when allegations become this detailed and this public, silence can create its own problem.
Silence is not evidence of guilt, and it would be unfair to treat it as such. But for an institution with the size, resources and reputation of KCB, failing to publicly address specific concerns can leave customers and the wider public wondering whether the bank considers the issues too insignificant to answer, whether it is constrained by ongoing legal processes, or whether it simply prefers not to engage.
That distinction matters.
If KCB disputes Powel’s account, it can say so and provide the facts it is legally able to disclose. If contractual or court restrictions prevent it from discussing particular details, it can equally explain that.
The same applies to concerns about its workplace environment. KCB can explain the systems it has in place to deal with complaints involving bullying, excessive workloads, intimidation or employee mental wellbeing without commenting on confidential personnel matters.
On Powel’s dispute specifically, the bank can clarify what happened to the international payments, whether any transaction was recalled, when money was returned, how funds credited to his account were applied and what communication took place between the bank and its customer during the dispute.
The bank can also clarify how the rental amount was calculated, what arrears existed, what notices were issued before auctioneers became involved and how the seized equipment was valued.
Powel, on his part, should also make available the records supporting his account, including transfer instructions, bank statements, invoices, communication with his supplier, rental documents and records relating to the equipment taken from his premises.
That is important because serious allegations against any institution should ultimately be tested against documents rather than public anger alone.
