SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Otieno v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (Cause 2464 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 107 (KLR) (8 June 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELRC 107 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
107
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 107 (KLR)
Decided
8 June 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeEmployment DisputePostureAppeal from an original trial decisionCoramOCHARO
Holding

The court found that the Claimant did not have a cause of action against the Respondent and that the VER Programme was lawful and procedural.

Facts

The Claimant, Lynette Akinyi Otieno, was employed by the Respondent, National Bank of Kenya Ltd, as a clerk typist. She was promoted to various positions, including Executive Assistant Grade MG9, with a monthly salary of Kshs. 285,274. The Respondent introduced a Voluntary Early Retirement (VER) programme in February 2014, offering certain benefits to employees exiting the bank. The Claimant applied for and accepted the VER programme.

Issues

  1. Whether the Claimant had a cause of action against the Respondent.
  2. Whether the Claimant was discriminated against by the Respondent.
  3. Whether the VER Programme was lawful and procedural.
  4. What reliefs the Claimant is entitled to if any.

Reasoning

The court determined that the Claimant voluntarily accepted the terms of the VER Programme and did not demonstrate undue influence or coercion. The court held that the parties voluntarily agreed on the terms of the VER Programme.

Outcome

The court dismissed the Claimant's claims.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (4)
  • State of Punjab & others v Dhanjit Singh Sandu
  • Rafosthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Another vs. Diamond and Gem Development corporation Limited and Another
  • Krystaline Salt Limited v Kweiwe Mwalele
  • Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telcom limited
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case