How your CV can be used as evidence against you in court

A strong CV is an asset for anyone seeking career growth. It opens doors, signals competence, and positions a candidate for brighter days.

But a recent decision by the Court of Appeal in CMC Motors Group Ltd v Yasser Said Swaleh reveals a less obvious reality, the very experience that helps you secure a job can later be used to justify your dismissal.

The case gives a glimpse of the assumption that lack of training or onboarding gaps can shield employees from the consequences of their actions.

Yasser Said Swaleh was not an inexperienced recruit. He was hired by CMC Motors Group as a Ford Brand Manager and later promoted to Regional Manager stationed in Mombasa.

By his own account, he had worked with major automotive brands internationally and had even trained other managers.

However, his employment came to an abrupt end following allegations of serious misconduct.

The company accused him of misreporting vehicle sales, overstating expected incentives, and benefiting financially from inaccurate entries in the system.

It also alleged that he reversed transactions in an attempt to conceal discrepancies.

Swaleh did not entirely deny the inconsistencies. Instead, he argued that they stemmed from inadequate training on the company’s internal systems and structures.

At first glance, this defence might seem reasonable. Modern workplaces often rely on complex systems, and poor onboarding can lead to costly mistakes.

The Employment and Labour Relations Court initially found in his favour, holding that although the dismissal process was procedurally fair, the employer had failed to justify the reasons for termination.

But the Court of Appeal took a very different view.

In a decisive ruling, the court rejected the argument that the lack of training excused the conduct in question.

They were particularly influenced by Swaleh’s own professional background, which painted him as a seasoned and capable manager.

In many employment disputes, sometimes courts are sympathetic to employees who demonstrate that they were not properly trained or supported.

However, the case of Swaleh illustrates that such arguments carry far less weight when the employee is highly experienced.

The court went further, making a broader point about the expectations placed on job applicants.

In other words, by accepting the role, Swaleh had implicitly represented that he possessed the necessary skills. His CV, which showcased years of experience in the automotive sector, reinforced that expectation.

This created a paradox: the stronger his credentials, the weaker his defence.

A critical aspect of the ruling is that the court did not treat the case as one of simple underperformance. Instead, it framed the issue as misconduct.

The evidence showed that the discrepancies were not isolated errors but involved misreporting, financial benefit, and attempts to reverse transactions. The court concluded that these actions could not be explained away by gaps in training.

This distinction matters. While incompetence may sometimes justify leniency or retraining, misconduct, particularly where personal gain is involved, attracts far less sympathy.

For employees, the message is clear, accepting a role comes with an expectation of competence. Where gaps exist, they must be addressed proactively, through seeking clarification, requesting training, or escalating concerns. Remaining silent and later citing lack of training may not suffice.

For employers, the case reinforces the importance of documenting both training efforts and disciplinary processes.

While the court ultimately sided with the employer, it did so on the basis of evidence showing both procedural fairness and substantive justification.