Ex-Telkom workers win Sh45.57 million payout after 19-year court battle

Telkom Plaza. [File, Standard]

The High Court has directed that Telkom Kenya and Gilgil Telecommunications Industries will pay 55 former staff Sh45.57 million compensation in salary arrears and interest.

Justice Julius Nangea ended a 19-year dispute between the staff who were terminated from work on June 15, 2006 and the telecommunication companies.

In his verdict, Nangea reviewed a judgment delivered by Justice Luka Kimaru on July 13, 2011, for not being specific on the salary and house allowance arrears owed to the 55.

He ruled that the staff proved that they were entitled to the Sh46.57 million in line with a Court of Appeal decision of November 4, 2016, November 6, 2020, and June 5, 2025.

"The arrears owed include Sh15.73 million principal sum plus Sh30.84 million interest accrued from July 13, 2011, to June 30, 2025," ruled Nangea.

According to Nangea, the Court of Appeal pointed out the mistake in Kimaru's verdict, where the decision omitted a specific sum awarded to ex-employees.

He said that although the judgment was not specific, there was a clear pointer as to what the court had in mind.

Nangea said that the error and mistake on face of the record was self-evident and did not require extensive or elaborate argument to establish.

Further, the judge noted that the companies did not challenge the Sh46.57 million and he took it as that the companies did not oppose the staff's understanding of Kimaru's judgment.

"The defendants did not file a reply despite evidence of service of the Application upon their lawyers. The case will hereby be determined undefended," he ruled.

He allowed the application by the 55 and condemned the companies to pay the cost of the application.

Through their representative Duncan Nderitu, the former employees submitted that they were terminated from work on June 15, 2006.

He prayed for the Sh46.57 million, insisting that the figures were arrived at on the basis of their payslips and calculations based on personnel circulars of 2001 and 2003, and a 10 percent increment awarded in 2004 and 2005.

According to Nderitu, they moved to court following the termination and in 2011, the judgment was entered in their favour.

"The court declared that we were entitled to improved terms of service negotiated by our union until termination of their respective employment," he deposed.

However, he deposed that the judgment did not specify the amount of money they were owed but directed that computation would be done based on evidence of one of the employees.

The companies' appeal was partially allowed and the court set aside the order that directed the calculation of the accrued arrears using the stated tables, insisting that the same was not specific.

However, the appellate court upheld the judgment declaring that the staff were entitled to benefits under the raised terms of service.

However, Nderitu informed the court that the companies declined to execute a draft order prepared based on the Court of Appeal decision.

He deposed that an application for settlement of terms of the staff was filed on November 29, 2018, and an order delivered on November 6, 2020, still maintained that the staff were entitled to the benefits in the improved terms.

"Despite the orders, the companies, yet again, refused to endorse a draft order extracted from the Court of Appeal," he submitted.