Dstv Dailynews  Mobile

NIC loses 700m/- demand case

THE National Insurance Corporation (NIC) has lost its bid to challenge execution proceedings on payments of about 700m/- to its former employees.

This follows a decision of the High Court to dismiss with costs the application for revision by the NIC, the applicant, for lacking merits against the ruling given by Ilala District Court in favour of the employees, the respondents.

In her decision, Judge Juliana Masabo found the records of Ilala District court to be proper save for the order to pay 322m/-, which is to be determined after the applicant has submitted the breakdown as per the courts order.

“The application is dismissed with costs for lack of merit. The applicant is hereby ordered to comply with the order of Ilala District Court by submitting the breakdown within 30 days from the date of this ruling,” she declared.

The judge was of the settled view that the magistrate was justified in ordering the applicant to provide a breakdown of what has been paid so far so as to ascertain the claims that have been paid and those which remain due.

Instead of providing the breakdown, Dr Masabo noted, the applicant defied the orders of court and had of yesterday failed or neglected to provide the breakdown.

According to her, provision of the breakdown as from the events pertaining to the case, was also imperative in preventing any risk of double payment, thus it was in fact, in the interest of both parties as well as the court that the claims paid so far be known.

“Failure by the applicant to provide the breakdown would imply that save for the uncontested amount, no payment has been effected in respect of the contested claims. Considering the order was a lawful refusal to submit the same amount to contempt which cannot be sanctioned by this court,” she said.

Mr Maligisa Manyangu and 24 others, the respondents were former employees of the applicant.

In 1999 they were dismissed but successfully challenged the termination before Ilala Conciliation Board in a decision dated September 14, 2001 whereby they were reinstated but under suspension.

On August 5, 2008 they were paid half of their salary arrears of 3080,610,120/-from 1999 to July 2008.

In 2009 the respondents were retrenched due to reorganisation process whereby they filed an execution proceedings at Ilala District court to enforce payment of 685,275,826/20.

Such pays were half salary from 1999 to 2001, salary increment and house allowances which was unpaid during the retrenchment.

The applicant agreed to pay the Respondent’s dues at a tune of 362, 893,153/- being half of salary but disputed the other claims of housing allowance and salary increment.

Eventually, the parties signed a deed of settlement where the applicant agreed to pay the uncontested claim at a tune of 362,893,153/-.

The Respondent remained adamant to pursue the reminder of the claims in court.

Meanwhile, the respondents together with other former employees of the applicant filed a complaint before the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration at Ilala claiming for terminal benefits.

The complaint was held and determined whereupon the Applicant raised an objection to the execution of proceeding claiming that the claims contained in the execution proceeding were determined by the Conciliation Board hence the executions proceeding is res judicata (already determined).

On January 27, 2017, the presiding magistrate overruled the objection and the applicant was ordered to show if it has already paid half salary for 2001 to 2009, whereby on March 9, 2017 the applicant adduced proof that half salaries were already paid to the respondents.

Later on April 19, 2017 the court ordered the applicant to provide a breakdown of the amount paid to prove whether salary increment and housing allowance was paid.

Subsequently on May 17, 2017 and June 1, 2017 the court ordered attachment of the applicants’ bank accounts for 322,382,671/20.

Furthermore, on June 2, 2017, the court issued a garnishee order against one of the applicant’s bank accounts.

It was at that point in time when the applicant moved the court to call the lower court’s proceedings and revise the orders to submit breakdown of payment and attachment of accounts.

THE government has emphatically ...


Post your comments

Recent Posts


more headlines in our related posts

latest # news