Some 29 KCB ex-employees have suffered a knock-back after Court of Appeal temporarily suspended orders to have them paid a total of Sh115,518,852 in damages and benefits.
The appellate court ruled that the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) orders would be suspended pending an appeal lodged.
In the case, Omondi Justus Rang'ang'a and 28 others who were contract clerks claimed that the bank violated their rights and discriminated against them.
ELRC heard that despite the contract clerks and permanent clerks having the same job descriptions, the formers' salaries differed.
They also claimed that the applicant—KCB practiced unfair labour practices.
In response to the claim, KCB said the respondents were at all material times employed for agreed tenure of a year each, which expressly set out the terms agreed upon between the parties.
It also argued that the ex-employees did not provide enough evidence to support the rights violation claims and added that they enjoyed the benefits from their respective contracts.
The court concluded that the claims against the bank were proved.
It said the basic minimum conditions of employment ought and should have been those under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), adding that to go below the level was unlawful.
The contract clerks earned a gross wage of Sh32,481 monthly with no annual leave and salary allowance.
The court directed that each of the former employees be paid Sh2 million in damages, Sh241,657.20 pension, Sh1,247,256 underpayment, Sh30,995 untaken leave days, Sh7,200 meal allowance, Sh424,800 house allowance and Sh31,500 leave allowance.
It also ordered that the bank issues the respondents with certificates of service and bears the costs of the claim.
This amounted to Sh115,518,852.
Aggrieved by the decision of the ELRC, KCB filed an instant application supported by an affidavit sworn by its head litigation counsel.
The counsel averred that in the event of execution, the appeal shall be rendered null as the applicant does not know any of the respondents' assets or sources of income from which it could recover the amount should the appeal succeed.
The counsel also stated that KCB, being a financial institution was able to pay the decretal amount in the event the appeal is unsuccessful.
The respondent's counsel conceded that the amount involved was huge and her clients might be able to pay it back.
Judges Daniel Musinga, Imaana Laibuta and Ngenye-Macharia found that the appeal was arguable and would not compromise making the appeal void.
They concluded that the bank had satisfied the twin principle for grant of relief under rule 5(2)(b).
The rule empowers the court to entertain preliminary applications for the preservation of the subject matter of the appeal in order to ensure the just and effective determination of appeals.
"Accordingly, we hereby allow the applicant's Motion as prayed and order that the costs thereof be in the intended appeal," they ruled.
