Kenya Ports Authority on Monday launched a scathing legal battle at the Industrial Court in Mombasa to block its former board chairman Danson Mungatana from representing 132 employees in a suit against the corporation.
KPA lawyer Micheal Sanguro also objected an application made by the workers Lawyer Danson Mungatana to have the matter certified urgent and interim orders be maintained.
“There is no need for the matter to be certified agent since the matter has been there since 2012” said Sanguro
Mungatana had argued that the interparty hearing could be filled to avoid prejudice among the parties.
The employees through Mungatana filed a case before the Industrial Court trying to stop KPA from investigating claims that they used fake academic and professional certificates to secure employment.
Mungatana currently a practicing lawyer in Mombasa, chaired the KPA board between December 31 2013 and October 30 2014 before he was replaced by the former Mwatate MP Mazden Madoka .
The Former Garsen MP also is representing the embattled workers in a suit filed by Dock Workers Union.
In a replying affidavit sworn by KPA head of human resource Amani Komara, KPA management alleges existence of real prejudice, mischief and a breach of confidentiality in Mungatana .
Komara said in the affividavit that Mungatana should not be allowed to represent the workers since he chaired the KPA board meeting that deliberated on a report on authenticity of staff academic and professional certificates.
The affidavit presented in Court on Monday claimed that on August 27, 2014, the board resolved that KPA should take disciplinary actions against suspected workers, including summary dismissal of the staff members .
It reveals also that the KPA Board under the chairmanship of Mungatana further resolved not to allow employees to file a suit in court due to failure to adhere to procedural guidelines.
KPA further alleges in the affidavit that, of the 132 employees suspected to have presented fake certificates, 107 are not members of the Dock workers union hence the union has no mandate to sue on their behalf.
The case will be mentioned on September 2 , 2015.