Yunis Moraa Gichana v Wakenya Pamoja Sacco Society Limited & another [2020] KEELRC 109 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed a former SACCO employee's claim for retirement benefits because bank records showed the money was paid into her own account.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the claimant proved she was owed terminal benefits by the respondents
The suit was dismissed; the documentary evidence showed the full terminal benefits of Kshs. 210,762.95 were credited to the claimant's SACCO account, with Kshs. 19,902.60 applied to her outstanding loan
The two cheques issued by the provident fund were drawn in the claimant's favour and remitted to the 1st respondent's account held at the 2nd respondent bank. The ledger and account statements showed Kshs. 190,860.35 credited to her SACCO account and Kshs. 19,902.60 debited towards her outstanding loan. Only the claimant had authority to withdraw from her account, so she failed to prove non-receipt on a balance of probability.
Liability of the 2nd respondent bank
The 2nd respondent was absolved from any liability as it merely hosted the 1st respondent's account
There was no evidence associating the Co-operative Bank with the payment transaction beyond hosting the SACCO's account into which the cheques were remitted. The bank was a stranger to the employment relationship and the dispute, if any, lay between the claimant and the SACCO.
Entitlement to benefits under the 2008 Collective Bargaining Agreement
The CBA did not apply to the claimant as she had left employment in 2002; retrospective benefits not payable
R.W.1 testified and produced the CBA executed on 18th June 2008, long after the claimant's early retirement in 2002. The court held the negotiated benefits under that agreement could not be claimed retrospectively by a former employee, and that head of claim was dismissed as lacking merit.
Legal principles established
#- The claimant bears the primary burden of proving entitlement to terminal benefits on a balance of probability under sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act
- A Collective Bargaining Agreement concluded after an employee has left employment does not apply retrospectively to that employee
Court orders
#- 1.The entire suit is dismissed
- 2.The claim under the Collective Bargaining Agreement is dismissed as lacking merit
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and labour relations dispute concerning retirement/terminal benefits (not expressly stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Yunis Moraa Gichana v Wakenya Pamoja Sacco Society Limited & another [2020] KEELRC 109 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Cause No 367 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/109/eng@2020-12-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.