Former Kenya Airports Authority acting MD Yatich Kagungo wants disciplinary proceedings against him stopped.
His remarks to union staff agitating against the proposed Kenya Airways management of the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport had caused disquiet in several quarters.
Kagungo claims that he has been in a non-existent office for the past one and a half years without any duties or assignments being assigned to him.
He further alleges that he has been kept in the dark about management meetings despite the fact that he is a senior manager and has only been receiving newspapers, tea and his salary.
In his affidavit, Kagungo claims that on February 4, 2019 he was confronted by a group of angry union officials and staff members who demanded to hear from him.
According to him, they wanted to know whether he was a part of a group of the top management that wanted to ‘sell off’ JKIA, the property of Kenya Airports Authority, to Kenya Airways (KQ).
“The apparently angry staff members were more angered by the reality that the said takeover would render them redundant and therefore wished to hear from him by virtue of the fact that he had been on the top echelon of the leadership of the Authority,” the court papers read.
“The Applicant has no confidence over the composition of KAA disciplinary committee and is fearful that the open bias against him will not lead to a just outcome,” court papers read.
Kagungo expressed fear that the outcome of the said disciplinary proceeding against him, if not stopped, is easily going to humiliate and persecute him.
“The disciplinary session slated for the 27th February (tomorrow) against the Applicant herein is tantamount to a committee of hyenas presiding over the welfare of a goat,” Kagungo said.
Similarly, he wants the court to permanently restrain KAA from subjecting him to any disciplinary meetings presided by the disciplinary committee as is currently constituted.
The Board of Directors, Kenya Airports Authority, Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport and the Attorney General have been named as respondents in the case.