More than 1,000 former workers of Kenya Power and Lightning Company (KPLC) have petitioned the Chief Justice Martha Koome over the delay in hearing and determination of their 18-year-old case where they have sued for unlawful dismissal at the Eldoret High Court.
The former employees who filed the matter in 2003 want the company to compensate them Sh 14 billion for terminating their services prematurely, yet they were hired on permanent and pensionable terms.
Led by their Chairman Chrispus Sichei, the former employees implored upon the CJ to intervene in their plight, arguing that the pace at which the case was proceeding was not only worrying but also discouraging.
Sichei regretted that the majority of their former colleagues have passed away due to stress-related complications as they waited for justice in the case that has dragged on for several years since they were laid off unlawfully.
“We are sending a passionate appeal to the new CJ to intervene in our matter because it has taken so long to be heard and determined and yet we continue to lose some of our former colleagues due to stress-related complications,” said Sichei.
He asserted that their hope now lies in the hands of Koome as she is the only one who can ensure their matter is expedited to get justice once and for all.
They also lamented that the protracted battle has eaten into their savings to the last coin.
“We have been making several trips to the court with a view to know the progress of the case owing to the fact that we come from different parts of the country. Every time we come, we are told the matter has been adjourned for one reason or another,” exclaimed Sichei in Eldoret town.
The employees told the court that “upon being sent home between 2001 and 2002, they were overly discriminated against and traumatized as a result of the manner in which the termination was conducted”’ while praying to the court for appropriate compensation.
According to the suit papers presented in court, the workers claimed that the management had at first proposed cost-cutting measures, in which their salaries would be deducted and their jobs would be saved.
“The plaintiffs state that on or about the 27th day of October 1999, the defendants through its managing director who addressed the plaintiffs representatives to set in motion what was then referred to as ‘cost cutting measures’ due to an alleged drought situation that was affecting the defendant’s business of electricity distribution,” read part of the petition.
“The defendant thereafter proceeded to deduct money lawfully due to the plaintiffs as leave, travelling, medical, overtime and other allowances while the plaintiffs were still engaged in the defendant’s employment in the false hope that by doing so, the plaintiffs would be retained in the defendant’s employment.”
However, a section of the plaintiffs through their lawyer Mathai Maina argued that despite having their salaries chopped, they still faced termination of their employment under the guise of retrenchment.
“…plaintiffs were made to believe that the cost-cutting measures were formulated to ensure that they remained in their employment and were able to secure a monthly salary causing the plaintiffs to adjust their positions…the plaintiffs shall nonetheless contend that the defendant terminated their services and retained the deductions,” read the suit papers.
The employees want the court to determine whether the company’s staff reduction programme/ retrenchment was lawful and in terms and conditions of their service and whether or not the company misapprehended their entitlements and made wrongful deductions that amounted to about Sh1.5 billion.
The employees further claimed that upon their dismissal from work, other people were employed to take their positions.
An attempted mediation ordered by Employment and Labour relations Judge Nelson Abuodha between 2015 and 2019 collapsed after the parties failed to agree on an out of court settlement.
In March this year, the plaintiffs amended their claims before court, introducing new claims of fraud, arguing that the pay cut was meant to defraud workers of their benefits.
“The termination of employment in 2001 and 2002 by the respondent was a well-organized and sophisticated scheme whose theme and mission was to steal workers’ dues between 1998 and 200,” read the amended claim.