BY SAM ALFAN.
Former Family Bank CEO Peter Munyiri Maina has filed a notice seeking to appeal a decision by Employment and labour Relations Court to award him 30.6 million over unfair withholding of his dues.
Maina filed the notice saying of he was dissatisfied with the presiding judge move to award him ksh30.6 million instead of ksh57 million sought.
“Take notice the claimant being dissatisfied with part of the decision of lady justice Maureen Onyango given on June 14, 2019 intends to appeal to the court of appeal against that part of the decision determining the gratuity rate to be 18% of the annual gross basic salary, failure to award the claimant costs without proffering any reason and failure to offer reasons for declining to award interest, ” reads the notice.
Family bank last month suffered a blow after Justice Onyango Maina Sh 30,655,800 over unfair withholding of his dues.
The Judge awarded Maina the amount for five years as per the appointment letters.
She ruked that there was no dispute that Maina was employed by the bank on a fixed term contract running from July 15, 2011 to July 14, 2016.
“There is further no dispute that Maina is entitled to payment of gratuity for the years he worked for the Bank,” ruled Justice Onyango.
Through lawyer Gibson Kimani, Maina moved to court seeking to be paid ksh57 million dues owed to him by the Bank.
He claimed the bank was unlawfully withholding dues rightfully owed to him.
Maina argued that the terms of employment was a fixed term contract for a period of five years and at the end of which he would be paid gratuity to be calculated at 10% of the gross basic for the year one of the the employment and thereafter the applicable rate will be aligned with the banking industry rate.
The applicant applied to rely on the rate of 31% that was applicable to National bank of Kenya and housing finance company limited which banks are under tire towards the Family Bank.
Munyiri further added that his contract lapses on/or about July 14, 2016 and he was entitles to to gratuity of 30% of his gross salary which was the same as what was provided by other banks.
Family Bank while responding to the case said that Munyiri was not entitled to the relief sought and urged the court to dismiss the same with costs as I is based on erroneous, assumptions and extraneous gratuity rate covering wrong date.
It added that the 31% rate is not applicable but rather 18% of gross basic salary as per the report prepared Price Waterhouse Coopers.
The bank further claimed that the two banks that Munyiri was using as a benchmark are state owned and their gratuity is similar to the rate provides in parastatals.
The bank further argued that Munyiri was duly paid his dues at the time of separation save for gratuity and that the delay was occasioned by lack of standard banking industry rate.
