KETEPA Managing Director, Albert Otochi. PHOTO | NMG
A judge has dismissed a petition by former Kenya Tea Packers (Ketepa) managing director Albert Otochi, declaring that the issues he raised in the matter had been resolved in a different case.
Employment and Labour Relations Court judge Byram Ongaya said in a judgment on December 7 that the issues the former managing director raised in the petition were conclusively resolved when Mr Otochi and Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) Holdings Ltd recorded consent in February.
Mr Otochi has sued KTDA, accusing the agency of contravening and violating the Constitution, for suspending him. He, therefore, sought compensation for the alleged breach of his rights.
The judge noted that a different case, raising similar issues, was determined on February 16, 2023, after finding that disciplinary proceedings against him were held, leading to termination.
“To the extent that there are no events after that consent constituting a new cause of action, the court returns that the petition is time-barred,” said the judge.
The court said after enjoying the fruits of the consent in the previous case, Mr Otochi was seeking to unjustly enrich himself by filing the petition.
Mr Otochi informed the court that he was employed as the managing director on December 10, 2019, on a fixed-term contract of four years, which was to end on January 29, 2024.
He said he performed his duties diligently and to the satisfaction of the agency until June 25, 2021, when he was sent on compulsory leave for 90 days.
The period, he added, was extended on several occasions, forcing him to move to court, claiming that the employer was keeping him out of his job without just cause.
KTDA, however, pointed out that Mr Otochi was seeking similar prayers in another case, which has already been determined.
The judge said nothing stopped Mr Otochi from alleging the violations of the Bill of Rights in the previous suit, as it is allowed by the court’s Rules of Procedure.
“In conclusion, judgment is hereby entered for the respondents for dismissal of the petition with orders that the petitioner pays the respondents costs of the petition,” said the court.
