REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU MISC. APPL. 102 OF 2012 PAUL KIVISI LUSITI......................................................................APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC..................................................................................RESPONDENT RULING The application filed by the applicant herein which is undated fundamentally asks this court to order the Kenya Police Sacco to pay to the appellant who is currently serving a life sentence his dues which were deducted while on employment. The appellant has come by way of several provisions of the constitution but essentially he is demanding for his deductions. The appellant prior to being convicted for an offence of murder on 30-1-2006 was serving as a police officer with police No. 52853/86117754. The learned state counsel after several adjournments where he sought to get more facts from the Sacco but in vain conceded to the application but not before filing a replying affidavit. The application is not well drafted and this is well understood. But the bottom line is this court should look at the spirit of the said application. Having perused the same in the absence of any contrary views it is my finding that the applicant was duly employed by the Kenya Police and he was a member of the Kenya Police Sacco Ltd. The only document availed to court is a letter dated 23-9-2007 which showed his contributions on shares to be 99,700/=. Consequently, I do order that the Kenya Police Sacco Ltd do pay the applicant's entitlement within the next 30 days from the date herein. The aforesaid sum should be paid to the Deputy Registrar of this court where the applicant shall give further instructions to the registrar on disbursements thereof. Orders accordingly. Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 3rd day of March, 2014. H.K. CHEMITEI JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.