Court clarifies retirement age for teachers and civil servants.

Court clarifies retirement age for teachers and civil servants.

Court clarifies retirement age for teachers and civil servants.

Employers are now compelled to adopt the standard retirement age in the  public sector in order to combat retirement age fraud.

The Employment and Labour Relations Court has ruled that employers must use the standard retirement age in the public service when employees decline to disclose their retirement age.

The court did stress that such circumstances must be dealt with cautiously and brought to the employee’s knowledge as soon as possible.

That “there is no such thing as permanent employment” or that “every type of employment is terminable due to different aspects, including that of attaining a retirement age,” was said by Justice Monica Mbaru is true.

According to Justice Mbaru, unless the employer has compelled the employee to register and supply the date of birth or month, a date assignment cannot be made arbitrarily for an employee.

She asserted that a government retirement circular, which was mentioned in another instance, permitted an employee to specify their birthdate in order to provide some level of certainty to the employer regarding the retirement date. This was done in response to the workplace’s rising desire for candor and clarity.The retirement age was raised from 55 to 60 years old, and Justice Mbaru noted in her decision on an appeal filed by former security guard Kenneth Ouma, that this modification had been implemented as best practice over the years.

At the magistrate’s court, Mr. Ouma had brought a lawsuit against SGA Mombasa Ltd., alleging that the company had sacked him arbitrarily and without justification. When the lawsuit was dropped, he decided to file an appeal.

Since Mr. Ouma’s national identification card only listed 1959 as his birth year, according to Justice Mbaru, his 60th birthday should have fallen on July 1 of 2019 and not earlier.She argued that he should have been allowed to work past July 1, 2019, if his retirement situation had been handled properly.”It was unfair that the appellant was given an early retirement without following the correct procedures. In spite of being served too soon, he nonetheless received a notice and compensation for his time, according to Justice Mbaru.