Former employees of Telkom Kenya have suffered a blow after the Court of Appeal declined to suspend a decision that dismissed their plea to be granted houses, which they claimed to have purchased from the company years ago.
The four-judge bench said the 124 people failed to provide an arguable appeal and lacked merit in demanding rights over the houses situated in Nairobi that have since been declared unfit for human habitation.
The former employees moved to the Court of Appeal in April after losing the case at the Environment and Land Court in December 2021, hoping to be granted the restraining orders before a judgement is issued.
“We have gone through the memorandum of appeal as annexed and we do not think the issues raised therein are worthy of being termed as arguable,” ruled the bench led by Justice Hannah Okwengu.
The ex-employees had sought an injunction against Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees from entering, trespassing and or interfering with their peaceful occupation of the property.
They contend that the trial court erred when it found that they did not prove the existence of a legitimate expectation and maintained that by the pension fund selling the houses to third parties, it stole a match from them.
The Court of Appeal doubted whether the ex-employees were entitled to any legitimate expectation, especially given that the houses in question have been condemned as unfit for human occupation.
“Further, there is no relationship between the applicants and the respondent, for the same ended when they stopped being employees of the respondent,” said the bench.
In his replying affidavit, the pension scheme’s administrator Peter K. Rotich, argued the 124 individuals are no longer employees of the Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees.
Mr Rotich maintained their services came to an end during the restructuring process and they were paid their terminal dues and subsequently extinguished their rights under the pension fund.
The former employees were retrenched in 2006 when Telkom effected a compulsory retirement programme for those aged above 50 years.
They maintain that the pension fund produced no evidence showing that the suit properties were condemned.
