KPA ordered to pay retired worker Sh4m for delayed promotion

Employment and Labour Relations Court judge Agnes Nzei in Mombasa ruled that KPA had acted unfairly against Erastus Kadu, who served as a superintendent.

“The claimant’s assertion that he was discriminated by KPA by being left out when all other employees of the rank of superintendent were being upgraded to a higher job group was corroborated by two letters written at different times by heads of the marine department where he worked,” the judge said.

Justice Nzei further said KPA did not remedy the situation until October 24, 2020, some 12 days before the claimant’s retirement day, when a letter was written promoting him to a higher grade and increasing his salary.

“The respondent demonstrated by evidence that the claimant's belated upgrading/promotion after more than eight years of deliberate discrimination of the claimant resulted in increment of his basic salary and allowance save for berth productive allowance,” said Justice Nzei.

The judge also found that KPA did not explain its failure to backdate the increments to January 2012, when the claimant’s promotion should have been effected, and did not dispute the claim on loss of salary, house and car allowance.

Also read: 50 Met department officials lose suit in promotion row

She said KPA did not demonstrate the existence of any reasonable distinction between Mr Kadu and other superintendents in its employment who had been favoured with promotions.

“I am satisfied that the claimant has on a balance of probability, demonstrated and proved entitlement to the claimed money in respect of loss of salary, house allowance, and motor transport all from April 2012 to October 2020 as pleaded,” ruled Justice Nzei.

KPA undertook a harmonisation and restructuring process in 2012, which resulted in employees being upgraded to higher job grades.

Mr Kadu told the court that all employees of the rank of superintendent were upgraded, except him, forcing him to write appeals to KPA management requesting to be promoted like his colleagues.

The court noted that KPA was not shown to have acknowledged receipt of the appeals letters from Mr Kadu.

However, Justice Nzei declined Mr Kadu's claims for loss of berth productivity allowance and shift allowance.

The court ruled that KPA had demonstrated by evidence that payment of the two allowances was not constant and that berth productivity allowance was not increased after Mr Kadu’s promotion.

KPA had opposed Mr Kadu’s claim arguing that the process of promotion of its employees was strictly governed and regulated by its human resources policies.

The authority also claimed that its establishment is only as per an approved scheme of service, which cannot be adjusted at will without following due process and statutory approvals.

KPA further claimed that Mr Kadu was promoted only after following the due human resource process by its policies and laws governing public service.

→ [email protected]