And while BTL had already agreed to pay the severance, the interest proved to be the point of contention. The 6% arose because that is what the CCJ ruled. However, Awich explained that the ruling applied only to the appellants in that case, not the members of the BCWJ or anybody else who has not been paid, since BTL has already settled its debts with the appellants. He also explained why they believe that BTL is paying more than what they are actually obligated to since the BCWJ has not gone to court.
Kileru Awich, Internal Legal Counsel
"Now the 6% that was paid to those former employees who left within six years, that 6% was arrived at because the company at that point was not contemplating paying beyond the six years. Now you have to appreciate that the company's position has changed since then and the company is now going to pay severance payments to those former employees who left more than 6 years prior so the considerations are now very different in terms of interest because the company has agree to settle obligations which it has been advised."
"I also need to add that interest is not as of right. This interest which litigants get comes from statute, from the senior courts act and you have to plead it and you plead it in your claim at the court and you succeed in your claim and the court determines your interest under that provision of the senior courts act so the company paying interest now is actually the company paying beyond what it is required to pay because these matters have not gone to court only the matter of Irvin Marin and his fellow litigants went to court and that gives you full context as to why."
