Following from the above reasoning, the Respondent being the employer and the
natural custodian of relevant information/data about the pension and other
retirement entitlements of all officials named in the said Act, the Court therefore
orders the Respondent to calculate the honorarium and the amount due to the
Applicant as pension based on 50% of the salaries of previous and incumbent vice
presidents in accordance with the Act and pay same forthwith.
69. With regards to the second part of relief two, the Applicant’s claim is for the sum
of $158,000 as refund for the payment for the Security services he incurred and the
vehicles he purchased covered by items 14 and 15 of reliefs listed above. He based
his claim on the provision of Sections 6 and 7 of The Retirement Benefit Act which
states other entitlement to include;
“Section 1 (6):
“Appropriate diplomatic, protocol, accommodation, courtesy and
facilities, and;
Section 1 (7):
“Such other social amenities, privileges and benefits appropriate to
commensurate with the status of a former public official of similar
standing,”
The Court notes that the Applicant has not substantiated this claim by submitting
evidence in the form of receipts for purchase of the said vehicle and any form of
document evidencing payment of salaries either personally to the security officers
or to a security recruitment agency. As decided above, the court holds that though
the Applicant has not proved the quantum of relief sought under this head, by
virtue of the Sections 6 & 7 of the Act he is entitled these privileges. The
Respondent having provided these privileges to other former members of the
council and being the natural custodian of the documents evidencing the cost of
the vehicles and fees for security services, is obliged to monetise the value of these
entitlements and pay same to the Applicant forthwith. The court so orders.
70. On the relief that the Court should make a declaration that Respondent pay
successful Attorney fees of 2% of the principle amount owed to Applicant. The
applicant has not provided the details of cost implication to convince the court of
the entitlement so claimed. The blanket claim of 2% of principal amount owed is
denied. However noting that it is in evidence the Applicant engaged an attorney to
31