Grindlays Bank (U) Limited v Lyazi (Civil Appeal 4 of 1983)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the bank's appeal against an order to pay the respondent a monthly pension. The respondent had transferred his employment from the Dutch Bank to the appellant bank on the same terms and conditions. The document containing those terms was not produced, so the matter turned on the credibility of witnesses. The trial judge was entitled to accept the respondent's evidence over that of the appellant's witness, who did not know the Dutch Bank's terms and could not credibly explain why a transferred colleague received a pension. The trial judge did not err in law in inferring an agreement to pay a pension.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order to pay the respondent a monthly pension upheld
Facts
The respondent was an employee of the Dutch Bank from 1 January 1970. On that day the Dutch Bank sold its entire business to the appellant bank, and by agreement the Dutch Bank's employees were transferred to the appellant bank on the same terms and conditions they enjoyed with the Dutch Bank. The respondent worked from 1 February 1970 until December 1975, when he took early retirement at age 43. The appellant bank paid him terminal benefits totalling about Shs. 25,870, comprising his provident fund share, his contribution to the National & Grindlays African Pension Fund, and a gratuity. When the respondent complained about his pension, the bank replied that, having opted for early retirement, he could not be granted a pension. He sued, claiming entitlement to a pension under the Dutch Bank's terms. The document containing those terms was not produced, the respondent having lost it. He relied on evidence that a colleague transferred on the same terms received a pension.
Issues
- Whether the respondent was entitled to a pension under the terms and conditions of service of the Dutch Bank.
- Whether the trial judge erred in finding for the respondent where the document containing the terms of service was not produced in evidence.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.