Report On The Petition Concerning The Failure By Kenya Breweries Limited, Kaplan & Stratton Advocate And Harrison Kinyanjui Advo

:f'-" PARL OF IAMENT KENYA LI P RAF.Y REPT.TBLiC OIT i(trNYA IN TI{E HIGH COURT OF KET\YA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO.279 orr 2003 I,AUR.ENCE NDUTTU & 156 OTHERS......... VI}RSUS- PLAINTIFFS I{D},{YA BRD1VERIDS I,TD ,DEF'ENDANT JUDGEMDIYT 1) The plaintilrs,,numbering lsr fir.ed this repr;s'entative suit on thr:ir beha-lf a,d o, behalf of former ernployees of Kenya Ftre'"veries,Ltd, the del'endant rrer:ein, whose terms and conditicns of employmeiit. were governed by a mem()randum of agreement I dated,S.tt' Deder-nbet i997 and 29th Jr-rly 1999 and rvhose. contr.act _':. ' :" of ernployment were affected by the defeindants re-engineer-in'g .. proces.s which: 'began in 1994. The aforesaid action is by rvay of the Fr-rrther Amenclcd plaint dated 2/12/2oi.5 rvhere the ptaintiffs sought for judgement as follow-s: a) A de clar ati o n that. d e c i sto n .to.'cr:u s e. t h.ei r --ar.ly .reti re me nt ru as unlaufut and breached section go ctitd 82 of the. constitution and utas wrongfui crrtd q. nullitg. ': r. 6:G4|et.r'a.,Gtu2,6Gr.n\,,E* e.arrs:. tu::=:=3=gl=:!g_1=.:r=:=:!=:=@{. NAIROBI I.IIGFI COURT CIVrL CAs[ NO. 2 79 OF 2 003 'Ur]cllruriNl. 1

b) A decloro.tibn that the clefendant,s clction to retiretnent o_f the pleintiffs was unlawiful artd. cquse ea..iy unfair q.nd amounted to breach of the plaintifJs, corttracts of employmettt. c) A decraration t.hat tite defendant's calcuration oJ the praihtilffs, terntinal be'ne.1fits were u)rong, arbitraty antd. theg helped the defendant to withhotd hugb sums d.ue to.the ptaintiffs, d) An order that the defenctctnt should pag all the plaintilfs a.lt the outstanding dues;s.nd sqraries untit their retireiilit age at s*tg yeq.rs, e) An order tho.t the d.efenclant do ,supplg to ilte; plaint:iffs and. each of"'them audited stq.ternent oi ,"..u^t'a"t..ttrng. their dues. fl An order tho.t the plaint{ffs and eaih,",aJi them outsta.ndlng d.ues, I ancl otther ca4sequelzti<r.l pursuant to:-prayer (b) above. ,ii be paid alt entitlements g) AND or alterniitivery, generar d.amages Jor ross of ernprogment being L2::fre.n|hs gqlary f,or each and euery platntiff. h) costs ,J'lp:! a.nl\(c ) wi.th interestcouers at t;ourt rates. ) Th$;eE'&l.dant,:gri its,part, filed a defence dated Brh May 2OIB, ., a-?itl araended on"I2.1i.2oog and fruther: amendea o. i.zotoi in ^"i^" whiCie. it denied viclating rj.e plaintiffs, constitutional or other rights- The defendant arso stated'that the redundancies *!.. declared rn accordance wiqll. lirg appticabte . I,qQoqr- clefendant further averred that EmploSrrnent lau,s. The the 79 .OI;2003 IUDGEI\{E ,]AIROB.I HIqH..G OURT CI,VIL.CASI] N:0. 2 1 N't. a1d .

plaintiffs'termination u,as lawful ancl tl:at they were paid their dues. '9) when the suit came up for hearing, the plaintiffs summbnecl . James sibili (p.'vv. i), Michaer Ifimonyi 1'r.r,v.z1 .and. Lawre'ce Kyalo Ndutu (P.W.3) to testify i, "rpro.t of their case. The defendant on the other !a+d summoned one EV,ans,Kipnge_tjch Mutai [D \Y.fl.1to testiry in support of its deten cbt:t , i : 4) It is the evidence of James sibiii (pwr) that he..togethbi with j ; Michael Kimonyi (p w 2) and Albanus Ngrviri 'ffere.appoinieai to represent over 82o former emptoyees of Kenya Breweries Ltd in this sr:it. Ptrvl ad.opted the c,crlf,ents of his witnes.s -statemdnt as tr-is ernde+qe in thi3 suit. He .c.laimed that he togethe'with his colleaguey.. we;{e unfakll, sacked by the. deifendant in .C-;i : . "OA'ti#E4ooi.bf the law through a flawed. oro"L"" knor,r."n as Ear1y Retirement scheme rvhich begun in 1994. pwl further. stateci:'that the process for early retirement had conditionalities. PV/I arso stated that he dicl not opt for retirement but.he ,,vas never CSS ISSI].C WJ, an ear y retrremet'I etter on P-\M.l i:rther statecl that ttrey were retired in breach of the memcraridum of agreement between their union and the coutrl'ctvtl cAsE NO. 279 OF zOO3IUDGENENI. J NAIROAI HIGTI

employed new emplo1/ees to replace those rvho rvere r-rnlaw'fuJiy forced to take early retirement and cr declared redundant like hirn. P.W.l averred that he was claiming for a refund ' of lcsh.5O,0OO/=, a.i'r amount which'was retainecl by the defendant when he rvas forced to leave the defendant's employrnent. P.W. 1 also pointed that there was a schedule shorving rvhat was due to .'.=ea6h employee as a .a1rnd..:,,:.: 'Jn ' his evidence ila eross' :ri:' ::ri. exarnination, P.\V.1 stated .ihat his contract' of employment rvas based on .the rnemora-rrdr.im of agreement betrveen tireir union arrd ttreir employer, the defendant hetein. He also averred that whratever agreement reached betr,veen the union and the 'ernployer bound them. 'P.W.i conceded in cross-examination that tl.ey had no evidence that the defendant employed neu, emrtployees pfte4dhey tve:-e retired.. P.W.1 irlso stated tLiat though discriminatea Lim he had no evidence to pfove the aJlegation levelled against the defendant. 5) Michael Kimony: {P.W.2) aCopted the contents of the witness sraaement he exec'-rted as 15 eVrO llce ()s at he worl(ed L at tLre securily section havlng been employed at the age of 24 years. PW2 claimed that he rvas forced by the ciefendaqt to take E--.-+ -----r---. 6 rre,..lsz.-raqav.r-E.iG!@-+* NAIROBT HIGH COURI'OVIL CASE NO. 279 0F 2003 'UDGEMENT 5

'i r;' up edrly retirement after worl<ing for onl-v 9 yeargivide a letter datedlT.B.lggg.Heallegedthathehasneverbeenpaidtlre moneythedeferrdaatded.ucteclandretainedafterheleft emplo5rrnent. 'P.W.2 claimed that there lvas no clan:se in the contract of employrnent which proi,ides an early retir-ement' He also alleged that the aafdn-aalt employecl' new employeegr.after retiring them. PW2 stated in cross-examination that'he was ' actually paid ksh.50,O0o/= bi.:.! others r'vere not Paid' PW2 re- affirrn ed in his evidence in rb-examination. thdt there were no sufficient consultation before qhe irnplementation of the early 6) Lawrence Kyalo Ndutu (P,\I{.3) alSo acoptec the contents of his w'itness S,'tffim*rt .J fri. evidence in supporl- 9f fds claim and ' '..'.: ' tti_pse' p.i4qtiff$1-rvhoi-rr. he' represented. In cross-examination P.W'3 stated"- that there was a merrrorandum of agreement be.tureejh;ll)",,Iorion al1d the defenclant which gave rise to the joint Indr-rstrial'Council rvhere he was a member. P.\'V.3 pointed'or-rt ifrat -ttie mdmotaniluryr"of agreement'set out the amor-rnts palable to trirc. p.\M.3 conceded that he rvas paid the amo,nt specified'. p.W.3 aJso stated that the rrremorandunl of agreemenCindicated 6 NAIROBI.IjIG}I COURTICTVIL CASE NO. 279 OF ZOO3 JLIDGEI\,IENT retirernent scheme.

that he was to receive comptrtation frorn the financia] accguntant rvhich he received but r;,'as;.1ot paid a.s \,t,as compi-rted therein P.W.3 was emphatic that the clefenda_nt has not paid all the amounts due the plaintiffs 7) In support of the defence case is the evidence;of Evans Kipngetich Mutai (D.W.1) the defendant;s Hurna:r Resource Director. D.w:t adopted the contents of his''lvitnbss-statement as tris eviclence. He stated that thb:-.j:memora-ndum of understanding betrveen the defenclaht an'd,. the Unlon :was tO deterrnine the wages, hou:'s of u.-ork and, the cohditions ot employrnent of unionisable rvorkers. D.rv. i stated.,.that in tLre year 1997 lhe defendant underrvent a re-engineering procesd in )r'r th:t the ft.i.,,iff" \,vere rvhich a rad.icdl,, reyierv of business to cut costs and improve .,.;!i,-.r. . ::- ,, "1:.i; : ,;,i;i"i'S!.r'-.:. "i",; . ; e.fftiendy rb.y aqtgmation. This exercise, D.W. 1 saicl led to the closure of th'e defendant's lMombasa a:rd Kisumu plans. D.W.1 statedithe eniployees rvere allowed to opt for early retirement. discrirnina-ted ll.\V.1 sLated that there was a-r-r agreement between.piaintiffs" u:rion and the defendant trrat the defendant would retain ksh.100,000f = to cover debts and or Iiabilities due 7 NAIROBI HIGIi CCURT CrWL CASC NO. 2?9 OF Z0O3 JUDGE|\,IENT

to the defendant or Ternbo Cooperative. In cross-exa_mination, D.W.1 state d that the retircment age \\'as set at 60 years. He also. stated that the deferrciant cai-ne up with the idea of Voluntar-w Eafly Retirement before attaining the age of 60 years. DV/1 stated that employees would ,,'.,rite to the defendant requesting'to take an eariy retirement. It is.the.evidence of D.W. 1 that the . docurnent used to operationali'sei''tlie early defencianrt. the discretion to retirement scheme had given tJ.e reject or accept such fequests. E-wl stated thht the defendalt revier,'red its business aird foun{ that it had excess employees w.ho needed to be of loaded having investeo heavily in technologr to improv.e,,'9.f.Eciency. He state-cl,:that the unions rvere engageii to .-... set up tltel,terrn-( of redunclancies ancl the defendant settled for redundaiipy end ablndoneci the Volunta-i1, Early Rctirement :'l Sch'erne. D.\y. I fr-rrther statecl that the defendant urrdertook w]-at it' catlecl' re-engineering to reduce co-cts of production and improve efficiency. it-le a ere ivas a 3ornt rndut;trial council who rnet and agreed on \rolunta:y Early Retirement sctreme but he failed to tender in evidence the :rrinutes of council meetings held. NAIROBI HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO 279 OF 2003 IUDGEi\rB.,tT B

D.w- 1 also si.ated that part o[ the initia] payments were :-el-ained by ttre de-fendant- As for managernent employees, a s-um of ksh.1O0,OO0/= was retained u'hile a sum of lcshs.S0,000/=,,vas retained in respect of unionisable staff. In his evidence in.,re- exarrrination, D.w1 stated that there rvas an early retirement package ivhich rvas voluntar;' but the same u,as subseoueirtly ' -,: * ther.e was terminatiorr rvhich,::rvas not volnlta:1r. D:W. l.de'iEd t].at the ca-rcurations of the e:it package !.,:ere arbitrary.. He stated ,i.i1at the defencia:rt ltsed. the I(eaya Ilcvenue Auihoriq,r tzux ca-lculation guidelincs to ernoloyers to'tabuiate r,vhat q-as clue to the errlployees leaving. :. 9) At the cic,se of evidence, peutie s ivei:e invited to file and excira-nge . rrritten inbmissil>:i. Lceu'neci counsels appea:-ing in the nratrer . ' li '=I... rv6?e atio atoived to nia}:e ora.l highlights. Having consider.eci the evidence toge ther- ri;ith the rivar submissions, the following issues cornrn€nd tlreinselves for the cietcrminaticn of this court. ' i) whether or not the ea.rry retirentertt schente Lucts e €t r-t ie el-o uiit r-c o r t tr a u the existirtg contracts of ernplognrcnt :="=====*:*rz@) NAIROBI HIGTI COURT CII'IL CASE iVO. iZS OI'2003 IUDCETUENT :::T-:': / \_-/

---1-:.__...__:- ii) whether or not the plainttffs are entitlect to a reJund of the monies allegedig tuithheld blJ the clefendant' iii-) lvhether or nctt the plainti.ffs are entitled to be paid i r-r i-l theit' salaries ttpto the dc&e of retirentent.' / I { iv)whettter or not the plaintif,rs are entitled to general datnages for loss of errtplogrnertt,. w)-.+whether ot- not the tertr.ina.L' .bier;cfits c,lairnecl bg ttrc plaintiifs cLr e p r op erly co rnpttted. io) on the first iss,-rc, ii is the submissio;r of tire plaiI.]tiffs tl-rat clefendant cleveicpecl a volu;rtary- earll' Ictirernent schcrnc in u'hrictr anv er-rp'o1,ce r..,ho riesired ea.rly i-etii-clTlent l-iad to fill a giyerr form a:icl pl'ctsent it lbr considerati,ln b'v the lnallagcmellt ancl . there \,lias 1:]o glral'antee that tire reqitest u'oulcl be accected by'tLre emplo-r.er, It rVas pointed ogt that some of the colditions r.vtticlr v.rere ro bc tuli:lled beiore an ernpioyce cor-ricl be alLo"ved to .t taf<e up a voiuiltary early retirement irrcludccl inter alia poor or Jorv prociLlctivir_\,, poor disciplinarl recor(1, 1:oor heall-11 a-nd that subrnission o[ tire plaintiffs that emplo,vees s,ho l'zere aged above so years woulci ea-rn his/her safary upto ttie retircn:en,.u.g. ;teo ..-EE<i4;.G,Frr€1-€ffiJ::_=Gz*.crr:E—4crffi '.ra.-=:*l€ j-.,Iq NAIITOBI HIGH COURT CII,;II, CASI: NO, 279 OF 2OO3 JUDGSIiEi]]' Ig s-dsu-tire-

;J-.':.:i.- years. The plaintiffs have pointed oLlt Lhat the Voluntary Early I Retirement Scheme dt'd not achieve the clesired results of getting marly employees retire frorn their service. It is fr:rther the subrrrission of the plaintiffs that r.vithout consulting their unio.n the defendant unilaterally crafted a scherne tc send home a nurnber'of emplo;,rees. It.i's',.said thai the defendant rnouldlsend an eulplo_vee on co:rrpulsory leave and upon . his/her return, he/she u.'ould be issr-red vrith a letter of earljrretirement, letter of service arnd a schedule of computation. of his/her clues and ttrerea-fter the employee wor-rld 'ce asked to sign documents to clear a-nd leave, the comparil, pren:ises. The plaintiffs referred to this latter,.scheme as Urrila"teral Fo:ced Early Retirement Scheme. In resporise.,to thq plain{iffs' submissions, the defendant argued that tl.e ple—intiffs' union was. consulted and made aware of,1ir" int'ended implemcretation of the voluntary ea-rly retjrement schern6. The,defendant relied iir evidencc minutes o[ a meeting of the .Joint Inch-tstr-ial Council helcl on I1.08.2000. The defendant further. stated.. rhat in irnpiementing the ea:1y retirer:eent schen:e it did not discriminate: against an1, en:ployee The defendant further d.enied breaching Sections 80 ahd 82 of :=--::5--:-:r==:=: NAIROBI HIGH COUnTCIVTLCASE NO. 279 0F2003 lt,DCEiuENT 1L

the 1963 constitution. It afso denied breaching the teri-ns of the mernorandum of understancling enterecl'between it and the plaintiffs' union.. I ha-',e carefull_y examined the minutes heavily relied upon by the defendant in respect of the meeling '"vhich took plac? o. 1ltt' AugUst 2OOO. It is apparent that the early retirernent scheme took place between the year .t'EOf and.2O01. . .t' Jhe rninrrtes relied,,upon are in respect of a meetiqg of Joint Industrial council rneerJng l.eldron 11.8..2000. It is evident that the early retirement scheme ,"v'as.done .rnore than three(3).years before the consultative rneeting was held. The defenda:rt did not tender rnihutes of any meetings held betrveen the'defendant and the plaintiffs" unioi: prior to the commencement oi the forced eariy retirgr4eqt,scherne.,pr\ critica-l examina'jon of ihe minutcs ,te:liclercj'dr-by.tiie' defendant ,,,rrili shor.v that the union haci clearly .:ii ' .7.. -.i' st'ated that it.'had never been pa-rry to the forced early rerir-ement schem'!. Jre fait, the union clearl1, star.eci that the clefenda-nt had tu:ned the initial volunta-ry retirement s,:heme to forced. ea-rly retirement. Fafter o lcar-efurt evaluation '<;f the evidertce, I am convinceci that the plarntifi.s Lra.ve sliou,n tirat the1, u,ere ro..J1o (-. take an early retirement rvithout being consuitecl +or the *****.*_E NAIROBI HIGI.I COURTCIVIL CASIJ IIO. 2,79 OF 2OO3,IIIDCI]IUENT 12

participation of their union. The initial scheme was voluni.ary i-- but the "-'.re ^,<.'"" doctrrnentary evidencP presentect b;, borh sides shorv tha.t the .. .l plaintiffs' lvere en-rployed by tiie defendant on perma,nent and pensionable terms and rvci-e each expectert to retire at the age of 60 years.' The piaintiffs have cornplainerl that their rights as ' 'i'ii;l^-'enshrined und.er sectic.s- EO.,and s2 of the constitution (notv repealed). The defenda,t rras q-rgLred trrai the pralnLiffs hqve 'failed to tender eviclence shorring that thc-i, i,.erte discriminaied in j the implementation of the early retirer:rent schemes. It has emerged frorn :the e'ide'ce tenqlered that thotrgh there uias no open disc;igrjqation agaiinst the" plaintifis, it rvas nol clear qrhai criteria was appliecr in icienrifying. thc.rse to take up early retirerneint. tn lhe abse'ce of a crear c>rpranatio., tlr-, jorl"ljs- entitle t*{e.1prt the_re r'"'as subtle discriminationJr agar_gst $ras later t"igg(q5rorrn ,n. ,,*tff, Ul.oi. T;. ----- the plaintiifs vis-a-vis those rvho rcmainerl in employment. The plainliffs have also aLrgued that their righ.t to fair labou:- practices @4e.r.Artielt.--l-I—oi-the€orts,i:i-tut-iorof*enya;-201€- were breached. I, response to this s,bmission, the defendant cited the case of Alfrec Asidaga l{urima. and z others =vs= '-E-.krE--<icffi r'+ltqaF:E*c?- t _Es::s:@ NAIRoBI Hrclt couRT clytl cAsE xo zzg cF zD03 IUUcEn{Ei,i.t I rs

Attorncy General and 8 others, Nairobi c.,€i no. 179 of 201s in which the cburt of Appeal herd, inter alia, Lltat a court cannot enforce rights createcl under the new cor:rstitution un]ess those rights were :recognised and protectecl under the pre,rious ' constitution. with respect, I agree rvith the defencant,s latest subr:aission. In the circumstances thiS court by.inference finds tl.at, tJre plaintiffs' right.to protection .froni aiscrijinatiort under sections 80 and. BZ of the constifution of I(€,ya (nor,v repealed) was breached. J ... 11) The other question'rvhich is related to lhe above is rvhether the . implementation of the eaiLy :-etirement scheme was in breach of ttre contract of emplo)'rnent betu,een tle plaintiffs and the defendant... Thg: plaintiffs have argued that the letters sending tif,ein ho.lpe for earry retirernent carrrot be treated as . .; redtmda:icies'. Thei aLre of the vieri, that the same r,vere unilateral f g.,P*tl,rg tiggn e n! s. tt gi.g,. t'21 :rrre d.efendant- on the other ha:rd is of the r.iew that a,s , ------rnior*isa1rlc-e rrplc5re rms o clnp ovmen as per tl:e rnernorandum of unce:standing proviclcci for a declar.ation of redundancies described as ross of emplovraent through no fault NAIROBI HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE }iO. 2;9 OT ZOOS JUDCEIIEIIT L4

the contract of employnrent reclund'ncy is statecl to be o,e of the metho.dologl in rvhich an emi:lo5,ees, employrnen,t coulcl be bro*ght to a-n encl. It is expressry stated that redu.da,cy shourd be rvi.th clearry raid cou,n procedures. The c.B.A and the rabour i Iaws are very clear on r,'rhat conditions must rnet for ,-edundancy to be applied. First, it must be justilied a,-rd p.o:r.., that there is aeed to reduce the''n.rnber of employees in qrcl€i,tdr-save the empl6yer frorn colrapse. seconclry, that therr:edundancy process and pa-ckage must be nego'tiated a,d exprained in Ldra,ce to the persons 3ffecteci- Thirdly, tha.t there rnust be a clear criterion as to which emplol.ee r,;ould exit and r.r,hy must .e laicl dg.*.r. In this case the clefendant tailecl to procruce its anr:uar statement of accoult tb sho';i' its firiarciar -status despite hzrving. been served wlth a ngtice to produce by the plaintiffs. The pla_inliffs, assertion'lthat the defendart *,as there and has co,tinued to-date on a,, trpr'vard profitabiliry trend. remains unco::.tro'ertcd. There is ,o e-'idence that the process raras negotiated by tLre emproyees --_arfeete+_-l nii re __a b s I n otl e eatures, t cannot be said the defencra:'lt's ea-rly retirement scl:eme ca, be treated a.s. redurrclancJ. With respect, I arn convinced that the NAIROBI }IIGH COUiIT Ctl,tl Cr\SE i\O 279 oi:2003 IUDGEn.iENI' 76

piaintiffs were justihed to plead tilat tl're deleldant's scireme lvas left at thre whirns cf sectional heact ancl w'as irrUr."a rvilh extreme favourism emd discri:nination. The plaintiffs were therefore right :- to clairn d.iscriminaiion since there rvere no guidelines to justify r,vhy tkrey ,,vere retireci rvhile others oi similar qualificationS u'ere left to cor,:.tinue tc rl'or It is clear Lr my raind that the plaintiffs 1- II I ..;-i,s lvgr€ removed from ernployment rr,hinrsically and,''vrithout following the iaid dor,vn labour lav.,s ernd procedures. Consequ ently, the plaintiffs' termination a-nd or Cismissa-l is declared to be unla','..[ul a-ncl therefor-e the piaintiffs are entitled to be corn ensatecl.'/ 14) The seconel.'isque tc be cietermiped is t'hetlier or not tlee plaintiffs are errtitle'd$o b.e. refu:rded monies'.';ithheld by the defendants. It ..'-;: - ' .'j. ' is .the' srj-bmiision of ttre defendanl that the plaintiffs are not enti,tled. to bd,'refuncled thb' a-foresaid sttnn because the plaintiffs lailed. to Spg.cilicalllr plead artd prove save for the tu'o lllaintiffs rvho testifled. The deferrdant fur'Jrer a:-guecl tnat most of the @ajrti;zrck-tMurrr terit-was-es I ( they dicl ne1 si,;q'' the company morleii. Thc defendant also argped. that the cleim was not sirnilar- tc each plaintiff. The N.AIROBI HIGH COURT CML C.lsE l'.1o. 279 OF 2003 'iiDGENIENT L7 3

lc defendant further poir-rted out that thc scheclules of paynrents pfepa,red by the learnecl advocai-es i:.'di'e nevel' ac-lmitted as exhibits in evidence. Tl-re defencia:rt alsc argued that it has set up the defence r,vhich is to the effect that the ciaim for a refuncl is time-barred therefore the claim for ksh.2O,7 75 1<.) is not ..defendant to:refund the monie.s ii rvithheld as'security. It is pointed out that the defendant has adrnitted'having cieducted .the aforementioned a.rnollr-r.ts from the plztntiffS.. The plainCffs have r:rged this court to order the defendant ro pay th; claim as per the scheciules pro,,,idecl by tu,o llrms of advocates. I have considerecl the evidence pror,'icied bi' both sides ph-rs the submissions ove.r this ciajm- Thcre is no doubt that this claim .w.,{s pleacie-d.in-the p1ziiut.. The..plea rn:iy.nol han'e been precise du-e, .to the numerolls nurnber of plaintiifls. it is not in dispute that ttir,ee i>laintiffs testified on l-.eh:rll of rhe rest of the piaintiffs anC this is not unusuaL in represcntati,re suits lihe in this case The defendalt has stated that the claim is timeba,u-ed. It is rurforlurrate that tire defenciaret iras failed tc lay both the factual and legal'basis of this ground but it has insteacl macle a general NAIROBI HICH COUR1'CIVIL CASE NO. 279 OF 200J li,DcE:UL-,\T 18 justifred. The plaintiifs have beseeched this corut to crder the

submission r,vhich did not heip its clefence. Both the irlaintiffs and the def,:redant conclir that the defencli,rnc retained from each employee either a SLir-I'l of ksh.50,0007 = ol ksh.100,000/= as securitlr for the defendart company liabilities. 'l'he plaintiffs provided a full list of narnes and.amounts of re.funds due to each plainti{f. I have alreacly statect that defendant has stated that t]ie aneounts vr'er-€ repaid !o.the plaintiffs. 'l'he defendant srrmmoned t. I its Human R.esource ivla:rager;_, [DWl), to tedtify in its defence TJnfortunatell', DW1 did not proituce in eviclenbe aly documents or form of eviderrce to prove reilpbr-rrsement or repayment of the arnount r,vithhelC. The plaintiffs producecl in court in compliance rvith this ssi.trt's directive t',i,o liSts of claimalts anci the pay ,off schedirle3 ie confirm the cedurctiens. The schedule fi)ed by fit'irr of Narfrada a:rd Co. Advocates dated 1ltt day of N4ay 2AL6 str'ows that tLre defendant has withheld a surn of ksh.20,775,152 in i'esi!-ect of the pla:nt;ffs u,horn the aforesaid firm represents. 'f}:.is docurrrent has griided this court to ascertain the amount he l L i i wrtfrlre!-€t a_no' nol repai u LII e deiend.ar-li. I'he deiea'lomt-Tla- not controverted the schedule. It cannot thereiore lie in its moutfr to deriy the same. There is no reason r,vhy the plainti.ffs NAIROBI HIGH COTIRI. CI\II L CI1SE iIlO. 279 OI,2OO3 )UDCEIUEI,IT L9

ciefendant that at the time of plaintiffs, clisr-nissai, the remecly avaiiable viras damages if a defe',ia't r..ras riable, rvas limited to the period of notice applicable under the. en:ployment contract. The clefendant rvas of the submission that since the plaintiffs, emplOsrrnent was terminated by r,,r41, of redr,rndanc)., they rvere not entitled to "1"i- damiges. for loss of employment. It",i's the submission oi the ,plaintiffs that the entfie !ro.."" they rvere subjected to v,'as arr iliegalilv hence th€y are entitled to compensation in damages on the basis of a mlrltipiier of their sa-laries but being ,capped to 12 months, gross salary. The plaintiffs asked;,lhis: cor-rrit tci award each pla-iritiff a sum of kshrs-1o,o.oo.;000/=;9n this heacl. Having considerec the ri'al ...':. subrrrissigns ovei this clairn', I am satistied that the plaintiffs'exit . ;. ?. ' : frilrn Ui'6i. aeTEndaritfs employrnent cannot be tr.eated as redtr.ndancy. The defendant simply dismissed the plaintiffs ttrror-rgh.a. prpc'ess not recognised by the c.B.A and the contracts of ernplo.rrrnent sig:red by each plaintitT. In other ,,r,ords, the plaintilf-s.-',x/ere unlarv{ully.dismissecl. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled -to recei.,,e da:nages equivalent 1o the periorl pf notice i stated in the contract or the c.B.A. There is no dispute that t\ NAIRoBT rlcn courlr cryrrc.,rs:i- io:zTs -tF?iffi:lurff*,,r=rT::'*:"::--6f 't \_./

..9,

• tl

plaintiffs'employment u,ith the defendant ,ras terminated before the coming into force of the constitution of Iienya 20IO and the Ernproyment Act' 2007 ' in the case of Mary wakhbubi British Airways pLc Qor') eKtR the court of Appear considered the rerneclies avarlable to an employee dismjssed in 2OOO. In finding that the remedies in the c6nstifurtion of Ke.ya 2010, ,,,d -,rr; Employment Act 2O:7.d.id not "pqiY i' such.a case::thb court held. inter alia': ,,AlI that said, theu is t6 say,that.,this court only has jurisdiction tb arvard 'i[e re,1nedies available at the time of.the ivrongfuI .fis'ispal or unfai, termination, u'hen the causti-:.of action arose. tha Eiinploimsnt These : .: are rgm:e.diesi: that ?.re provided ibr under the A.ct, Cap 226 LairS of Kenia aIrdi th. repcaled In D.I, repeaiQ.d Trade Disputes Act, Cap 2S4 Larvs of I(enya.,,. .. tsaqhhetha =vs= Govc,rrnent of the Uiritcd states of America (2OLZ) eK.L.R the Court of Appea-l held inter i:zta: <a at—a ose s u.1rssal rvirs urrongful rvas I orrly entitled to damages equivarlent to the salar5r he NAIROBI HIGI-I COU RT CIl4L CA.9E NO 279 0J:2003 iuDcr-t\IENT

t rvould have carned cl.uring the pericd of notice applicable in his contract.,, 1BJ In this case, it is clear from the corrrract of employment eurd the merrl.orandurn signed betr,r,een the plarntiffs, .unibn ald :the defenda-nt that the derencia-rrt rvas rec,:ired to pay.one month,s saJar5z in iieur of notice i arn bf the ,..ierv that the plaintiffs jare each. entitled to a sum equivalent io oae rnontlifS sal as at the date of teimination as darnages.for lcss of emplo5rment I nrake the an*-a;C in favotu of the plaintiiis. advocates f,rle ancl serve the defendanr T'he plaintjffs ancl. their schedulqs shou"ing the monthly i!"lr-,-."ch plai.tiff'*,as ca.r.'ing as. at the time of terminatipli;.;oJ gmploi,*.rrt. f-tentio ;-r on G I 2 / 2o1 g to d etermine .-j the issr:e..(, .... ---4..:. -: i9) The finJ'issue:.to be ieter-rni'ccl is *.h:,.ircr o. not the defendarrt's cjalcuration of the prai,tiii,s cerminar. benefits were wrong, arbj[rary .and helpecl the dei.--ndant to withhold huge sums d,e to the plaintiffs. It is the subrnission of the defendant that the aforesaid payrnents '"vere ca-lc:_llated as requirecl under the Regulations of l,vages (C.e;neral) ^,d in accorclzrnce rvith the Iar.v gove.nlng employees r'r'I'ro hai'e b:e, ciecrared reclur,dant NILIF.OPI IIIGFI collliT cl'i IL CASE i{0. z7i) C l" 2003 |UDiii:irii:i[T bJ I tI

T'-e plaintiffs are of t'e vievi that since they \vere 'ot consulted, then the defendant's calcurations shonrcr be treated as arbitrary. I have consictered the material placed before this co,.rrt e*rcl it is clear to- trlis colrrt that though the defencretnt clid not consuit the plainti-ffs on the cor:rputation of their terminal benefits, the defendant nevertheless ga'e a schedure showing hoiv rhe figr-rres were a-r-rived at. whar is-crear in my mind is that thilciefehclant _ _--::: -.. Prqceeded to compute those duq: as thotigh the plaintifis r.,rere declared red.undant 1-unich i, ,)0, the case here. In the I clrctlmstances, I gr. .nabie to rna!-e a cieclaratio;l iiiar iire process,.vas \vrong o,. a,.r,l,.n r.l ---t 2o) In the fin-{ aqal1'sis tltis co,-r't cntle;s jr-rdginc*t i. ir.i.,rri- oi th,: plaintiffs es foil o. r1.s : |,] .. :i.:: ) it"i:s iiElc-sv a;c!.ared that th-e'ciecision tb causd the ,taintiffs to'.,take early*etirbment rvas unlarvful and in brea.ch o r consti:Gttlon nd the la intift!, contract of e4cllo.ynqint. V b) Tb'e defeuciant is hereby ordered to pay .ach of the prair.tiffs ----d-arn a-ges-forloss-ofi nt to onc (1) rrror:'th's sarary as at the time of termination of emprcyrnen.t. c) 1'he defendant is ordeied to reftrnd, to the ,.e.E-EEc-B€E<,Gk'r=s ir.c ii plaintifis a su:n cf N.{IROBI }IIGH COURT CIT'IL CASE No. 279 0F ZOOS .rr,DCEr\'!ti.l']

• :.j 1 , ..

a

d) e) ia ksl..3(),18O,685/= being the amount r'vithheld in terrirs of the dchedules fiied by the firms of advocates of Namada 8o Co' Advocates and the firm of J' Ilarrison Kinyanjui & Co' Adwocates tabulated 1' Iish'2O "/7-c'l+4 Es-h-g!J:s-g@q1= ::' Tot.1 ,. j, Thb plaintiffs to be paid by thc deferldants 1,3st to pay iate.lest oir ju1;'(q ) qnd [d 2. I(sh. 9 405 541 qourt rates froin' thO 'date of jri rrignt un e clate of fu1l til th this 24s ciJY of JariuarY" CE,P,'rl FY TLIIS CO?Y OFT t [)Ai'ED.*si o YF. si riil. ri 1{r:'A r pl N for the Re qt) c' f"" \tb I e\or..-Lc-"-t- i:) ,. ii tl. Ii! gul utiif AIIi UI TJ r)FKE .N..].ry...-- r:: ItYinfiJu-\ G.rrc\t.rtt r.,*AIil'OBl HIGII COUIlT cri'iL cAsii NC. ?.7:-t CF 2C03 )U DCE:\1Ei'IT 62 PW* ated-, Si'gneo:a:rd 20L . ........ :,... In thd Prescrice'of: n'f 6 D-eliverecl in oPen , ;-i;., 1.. :' ..t.!?').!. . .,-''t.r- -. - -.. 6:r:,: 'i:'. '.1:i J. K. SERGON UUDGI} .. for the