Willis Ogola Okendo v Collins Oyuu & 3 others [2016] KEELRC 87 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ordered KNUT to consider a retired teacher's old age allowance request, but refused death benefits for family members of living members.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Claimant was entitled to old age allowance under the KNUT Constitution
The Claimant has a legitimate expectation to benefit from the old age allowance under Article XII(3)(f) and the letter of 9th August 2012, enforceable by requiring the NEC to consider and communicate a decision
The KNUT Constitution expressly provides for allowances to members on account of old age as NEC may prescribe. The Secretary General's letter of 9th August 2012 promised that the Claimant's request would be put before the NEC and the decision communicated. The court held constitutions must be complied with and found a legitimate expectation, but declined to order payment directly, instead compelling the NEC to place the request on its agenda and communicate its decision.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to death and burial allowances for his two sons and mother
The claim for death benefits failed; the constitutional clause provides for payments to dependants upon the death of a member, not for dependants of living members
The Claimant retired on 31st August 2004 and by his own admission ceased to be a member on retirement; his sons died in 2007 and 2008 after retirement. The court construed Article XII 4(d) and found the claim was based on a misunderstanding of the clause, which covers payments to dependants when a member dies, not death or burial allowances for dependants of a living member.
Whether the Respondents discharged their evidentiary burden of proving payment of the Claimant's benefits on retirement
The Respondents failed to prove payment; no documents establishing the scheme, the prescribed benefits or any refund were produced
Although RW1 testified that the Claimant's contributions were refunded on retirement, no documentary evidence of the refund or of any scheme document setting out benefits was produced. Similarly, nothing prescribed by the NEC on the allowances was placed before the court. The assertions in the defence and witness statements therefore remained unsubstantiated.
Legal principles established
#- A trade union must give effect to all clauses of its constitution; no clause is included by accident
- Where a respondent asserts that payments were made under a scheme, it bears the burden of producing documentary proof of the scheme and the payments
Court orders
#- 1.That the 4th Respondent includes in its agenda for the next National Executive Committee meeting the request by the Plaintiff for payment of old age allowance as promised in the letter dated 9th August, 2012
- 2.That the decision of the National Executive Committee be communicated to the Plaintiff
- 3.That each party shall bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Matter transferred from the High Court (Kisumu HCCC No. 32 of 2014) to the Employment & Labour Relations Court; no specific provision cited in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Willis Ogola Okendo v Collins Oyuu & 3 others [2016] KEELRC 87 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 372 of 2015 (Formerly Kisumu HCCC No. 32 of 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/87/eng@2016-11-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.