Some 174 former Kenya Railways employees have got a reprieve after a court ruled they should not vacate company houses until they are paid full package.
Employment and Labour Relations judge Maureen Onyango on August 13 gave the retirees a lifeline after finding that Kenya Railways owes them money as they were not paid their full package upon retirement in 1998.
“Based on the finding that the claimants did not receive their terminal dues calculated on the full percentage of the salary increment, I find that they are entitled to the remainder of their terminal dues,” she said.
The former employees—led by George Ochieng Ododa, through lawyer Gregory Ndege—had sued the company together with the Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme demanding their retirement package and terminal dues as provided in a collective bargaining agreement signed in 1997.
The houses belonged to the employer but were transferred to the scheme in 2006.
The former workers sought protection from the court, saying the former employer should not interfere with their tenancy until they are paid in full.
The judge said the liability of the former employer still remains because the evidence on record is that it undertook to pay house rent for them until they are paid their full terminal benefits.
The court heard the company confirmed that the terms of the agreement was already incorporated into the contracts of the employees and partially implemented. The remainder was to be paid in instalments.
The court directed the company to tabulate their payments, based on their last pay and file a report within 30 days, for the final judgment on what is due to them.
The judge said the amount should be computed on their salary based on the 70 per cent and 45 per cent increment, for the bottom and top bracket employees, respectively, as stated in the agreement signed in 1997.
The court also noted that the second instalment was overtaken by events as the CBA was reviewed is incorrect because regardless of the time the instalment was due, the claimants eventual terminal benefits were to be based on these salaries.
Kenya Railway had submitted that there was no employment relationship between it and the claimants and that the court lacks jurisdiction to determine landlord-tenancy disputes.
The court, however, ruled that it was not relevant as the court was not determining the tenancy of the claimants.
