GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 4692

pursuant to the powers vested in him by section 8 of the Trade Disputes Act Cap 234 Laws of Kenya. The Minister's reference together with the statutory certificate signed by the Labour Commissioner were received in court on 13th July, 2006. The court then listed the dispute for mention on 20th July, 2006, when the court issued necessary directives regarding the filing of the parties memoranda. After several adjournments at the parties request the dispute was eventually heard on 25th April, 2007. The parties consented to conduct the hearing in the presence of one member of the court. Mr. Makuwa for the union relied on his written memorandum filed on 16th August, 2006. He,submitted as follows: The Kenya Bus Services Limited is a limited liability company incorporated in Kenya involved in passengers and parcel conveyance service in the country. The union and the Respondent have signed both the Recognition Agreement and a current Collective Bargaining Agreement. The grievants were employed by the Respondent in different — dates between 1962 — to date. The Respondent offered' the grievants various jobs including those of drivers, conductors, mechanics, cleaners and other auxiliary maintenance staff in various sections of the company. It is estimated that there were about/over 50 departments running the Kenya Bus Services Limited. The Respondent due to alleged shortage of funds sent the staff on unpaid leave. The court ,should take recognisant that sending of staff on un-paid leave hat not been applied in the motor/industry in Kenya and there is no such clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the parties. The action of Kenya Bus Services Limited was wrong and unlawful and in a bad taste. If the Respondent will claim that the grievants are still in employment, then it will be one way of trying to avoid not to be told to pay terminal dues and is only but buying time. The Respondent has organised the running of the company in such a way that it has established other extensive companies in transport business under the names; Msafiri, Metro and Express, all under the Kenya Bus management. At the time of writing this memorandum, the Respondent has put on the ground about eighteen (18) buses under the name of Kenya Bus Service Management Limited. When the dispute was reported to the Minister, he appointed an investigator and ultimately recomthended that the Respondent arrange modalities to pay the grievants all dues in particular salaries from April 2005, to date as they are still employees of the Respondent. At one time, the Respondent did make payment to the Ministry of Labour, for the grievants to be paid the sum of KSh. 500,000.,When it declined to make further payments, the union opted to refer this dispute to the court for arbitration. The Respondent has no excuse not to meet its obligations by paying all dues demanded by the grievants. Furthermore, the investigation pointed out the following important issues: (a) the Respondent have no justifiable reason, not to pay the grievants for loss of revenue because of reduction of commuters from 105 to 60 persons, yet fares were raised by 100% on all routes from KSh.10 to Ksh. 20. (b)the Respondent also established another company during the same period September, 2005, known as Daima Service, using Kenya Bus Services tags and facilities. There was also Bustrack operating in Nairobi and its environment under the same arrangements. (c)the Respondent could not rationalise that their profits went down because of installation of speed governors and safety belts and exercise which other public companies such like; Akamba, Eldoret Express buses and others have .clone without losing revenue to warrant the sending of their staff on un-paid leave, as well as, closing/suspending of their operations. (d)the investigator recommended that; the 'Respondent, the management of Kenya Bus Services Limited pays the affected workers all the wages for the period they have been on compulsory leave. The grievants have agreed with the investigator's report and it is out prayer that the court will find in its wisdom to uphold the investigator's recommendations. (e)It is hard to believe how this scheme was put on hold by the company. The Respondent had worked at a redundancy plan to lay off its workers and'pay them as follows: Department Nos. Claimants KSh. Conductors 20 totalling 123 10,540,650 Drivers 21 totalling 132 12,400,948 Mechanics 30 totalling 84 9,154,287 Inspectors 26 totalling 21 2,451,551 No. 20 represent -conductors; No.21 for drivers, No. 30 for Mechanics and No. 26 Inspectors. The union does not know why the plan was shelved yet the Respondent has enough money/reserve to meet its obligation regarding the payment of all its staff demanded. The total amount projected to implement the redundancy scheme was in tune of KSh. 72,784,327. - Finally, the court should also note that the Directorship of the Respondent has not changed much. Apart from the demise of Mr. John Peter Mbugua, the others are still there as proved by the certificate of search from the company's registry: On the foregoing premises, the union prayed: (a)That the court should order the management of Kenya Bus Services Limited to pay the affected workers their unpaid monthly wages from the month of March, 2005. (b)That the court should order the management of Kenya Bus Services Limited to pay the affected workers any allowances due to them in compliance itith the parties Collective Bargaining Agreement since March, 2005. Mrs. Onyango for the Respondent relied on her written memorandum dated 9th March, 2007 and filed on 15th March, 2007. She submitted as follows: The Respondent is a liability company incorporated in Kenya and, involved. in transportation of passengers and parcel services' in the country. The company has , a Recognition Agreement and has negotiated numerous Collective Bargaining Agreements with the union. The Respondent suspended operations and sent the staff on unpaid leave on 10th June, 2005, when all its fleet buses were repossessed by various creditors thus leaving the company without its toots of trade and unable to operate. Prior to the circumstances that led to the suspension of the Respondent, operations, the company has over the years been the employer of choice mainly for drivers, conductors and mechanics who formed the bulk of its workforce. This has been mainly because of the good management practices with well-laid procedures thus being predictable in all areas including scheduled duty, programmes and payment of salaries among other provisidns. The Respondent management has always held consultative meetings with the union and the Ministry of. Labour whenever any issues arose in an effort to avoid staff unrest and to explain business decisions likely to impact negatively on staff. In the matter at hand, various meetings were held with the union's representatives on various dates to explain the financial situation of the company. These were on 7th June, 11th June, and 15th June, 2005 and further in the Provincial Labour Officer's office on 23rd June and 7th July, 2005. The Respondent has therefore at all times kept all the parties well informed on the unfavourable business environment and prayed for understanding and perseverance as issues are addressed with the stakeholders. Each passenger vehicle carrying capacity was reduced from 105 to 60 passengers. This led to a total loss of KSh.1.2 billion. The requirements therefore led to strains on the cash flow leading to delays in payment of creditors and staff wages were not paid on time. Discussions were held between the union and Respondent's management where the management requested for staff support and understanding since salaries were being delayed and creditors could not be serviced. Prior to the decision of 10th June, 2005, to send all Express, Metro and Msafiri staff to unpaid leave, the company had been experiencing serious financial constraints for a period of one year, which arose due to Legal Notice. No. 161 of 2003, which required compliance by installing seat belts and speed governors on all company vehicles among other requirements. The same was challenged in court in High Court Misc. Civil Case No.109 of 2004 and found not tenable. The Respondent in an effort to safeguard the staff employment filed a suit in December, 2004 and obtained an injunction against compliance deadline of 31st December, 2004. In February, 2005, General Motors and Kenya Grange who had supplied buses to the Respondent moved in and repossessed their vehicles and this forced the company to go to court to seek another injunction in Nairobi High Court Misc. Civil Suit No. 413 of 2005, restraining all creditors from attaching the Respondent's vehicles. However, on 10th June, 2005, General Motors obtained an order lifting the injunction thus exposing all the assets of the Respondent to creditors and Auctioneers who immediately proceeded and attached or repossessed all the Respondent's vehicles. The Respondent therefore had no vehicles (tools of trade) to continue operations. The attached vehicles were owned or financed as under: General Motors 83 Express Kenya Grange 8 Express CMC 4 Express CFC 3 Express NTC 3 Express ICDC 30 Metro General Motors 23 Metro Imperial Bank 4 Metro This Development necessitated the Respondent's decision to send the staff on unpaid leave. The court order denied the company the tools of trade. These were circumstances beyond the control of the company. The employees could not continue reporting to work without the buses. The issue of locking out workers from performing their duties does not arise. The company explained its position to the Provincial Labour Officer vide letter of 8th July, 2005, detailing the circumstances that led to the current situation. In July, 2005, BP Kenya Ltd. and other 221 interested parties filed a winding up petition against the Respondent. The cases are still pending before the court awaiting determination in Winding Up Cause No.20 & 21 of 2005. The Respondent's predicament has been in the public domain and the Management is optimistic that a viable solution will be reached soon. All the buses have since been disposed off by the creditors and Auctioneers and there is no hope of ever getting them back. The Respondent wishes to observe that most of the staff have found alternative employment in various places including some of the Respondent's competitors. A total of 41 staff are and continue to be housed it the Respondent's staff quarters at Ziwani and Shauri Moyo respectively. In an attempt to minimize the plight of its workers, all the affected staff were accorded free travel on Bustrack buses up to the time it ceased operations on 30th June, 2005. The Respondent is also one among very few operators in the industry who were making statutory contributions such as National Hospital Insurance Fund, National Security Fund and PAYE unlike the other informal operators. The trading environment for formal operators in the industry has continued to be hard and predatory. A most recent casualty in Mombasa Metro whose vehicles were also repossessed. The following staff left employment before the company ceased operations: Contract expired = 147 Deserted = 23 Retired = 29 Resigned = 20 Dismissed TOTAL 228 In addition to the above employees who were not affected by the stoppage of work, 9 deaths have been reported and the company has been providing cash assistance of up to KSh. 20,000 for each case. The Respondent further states and reiterates that it is in no way associated with Kenya Bus Service Management Limited which is a separate legal entity. Kenya Bus Service Management Limited is a franchise holding that has no.relationship with the Respondent and cannot be held responsible for the liabilities of the Respondent. The action to send staff on unpaid leave was necessitated by the loss of tools of trade (buses repossessed). The company petitioned for the release of the buses to enable staff to resume duty but this has to date been in vain. In the event that the employees are to be terminated or declared redundant, the company is not in a position to raise the funds to pay their terminal dues. The Respondent was able to disburse payments to 734 members of staff totalling to KSh. 5,146,610.80 who had needy cases from April to June, 2005. Month No. of Staff Total Amount April 4,211,976.30 May 927,895.50 June 6,739.00 TOTAL 5,146,610.80 This was done on humanitarian grounds despite the cash flow difficulties. The company in good deed made payment of KSh. 500,000 to the Ministry of Labour towards payment of staff dues when the company was paid some outstanding receivables.,The company has since not received any other funds and is therefore now unable to make any further payments. The company is not trading at the moment but hopeful that ongoing initiatives in place are bound to yield positive results to resuscitate the company back to operation. In Misc. Civil Suit No. 413 of 2005, filed by the company in February, 2005, the Respondent is seeking indemnity from the Government for the loss of KSh. 1.2 billion. If granted the money will go along way towards paying creditors and staff. This is also meant to ensure continuity of the company. It is , worth noting that other operators like Akamba, Eldoret Express etc. could not be 'affected to the magnitude of the Respondent due to the fleet size and type of buses which required specialized works and additional seats. Eldoret Express has continued to operate informally and the union has failed to have a recognition agreement thus does not offer a criteria for comparison. The Respondent's Directors like the workers have faced serious financial losses as they have had no returns on their investments and have equally suffered personal exposures. The Respondent prayed that tiae court makes the following findings in any event: (a)That the company is not in a position to generate or make any cash available in view of the current state where the company has ceased operations as there are no tools of trade the same having been attached by debtors and creditors. (b)That all the company's assets have either been sold or encumbered and there is no likelihood of the company ever resuming operations unless there is intervention by the Government. (c)That the state of affairs has been brought about by circumstances beyond the Respondent's control, i.e. Legal Notice No. 161 of 2003. (d)That any award for payment of terminal benefits to the employees by Kenya Bus Services Limited will be incapable of implementation due to the reasons given above and the court would therefore be acting in vain. GAZETTE NOTICE. NO. 4693 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT (Cap. 53) RECEIVING ORDER AND CREDITORS' MEETING (Under Rule 61 of the Bankruptcy Rules) Debtor's Name.—Ibrahim Njuki Gitau. Address. —P.O. Box 260, Thika. Description. —Businessman. Date of filing petition.-16th April, 2008. Court.—High Court of Kenya at Milimani Commercial Courts, Nairobi. Date of order. —17th April, 2008. Cause No.-21 of 2008 Whether debtor's or creditors petition. —Debtor's Petition Act or acts of bankruptcy.—Inability to pay debts. Date of creditors meetings.-13th June, 2008. Venue. —Sheria House, Ground Floor. Time. —2.30. p.m. Last day of filing proof of debt forms.-12th June, 2008. Dated the 29th April, 2008. F. S. M. NGANGA, Senior Deputy Official Receiver. GAZETTE NOTICE. No. 4694 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT (Cap. 53) RECEIVING ORDER AND CREDITORS' MEETING (Under Rule 61 of the Bankruptcy Rules) Debtor's Name. —John Mwinzi Mutua. Address.—P.O. BOX 958, Kitui. Description.—Businessman. Date of filing petition. —2nd April, 2008. Court. —High Court of Kenya at Milimani Commercial Courts, Nairobi. . Date of order. —3rd April, 2008. Cause No.-19 of 2008 Whether debtor's or creditors petition. —Debtor's Petition Act or acts of bankruptcy. —Inability to pay debts. Date of creditors meetings.-30th May, 2008. Venue. —Sheria House, Ground Floor. Time. —2.30. p.m. Last day of filing proof of debt forms.-29th May, 2008. Dated the 29th April, 2008. F. S. M. NGANGA, Senior Deputy Official Receiver. GAZETTE NOTICE. No. 4695 THE VALUATION FOR RATING ACT (Cap. 266) THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF LIMURU DRAFT VALUATION ROLL 2006 NOTICE is given pursuant to section 15 (5) of the Valuation for Rating Act, that the Municipal Council of Limuru has appointed a Valuation Court to hear and determine objections received of the 2000 Valuation Roll. The said Valuation Court will be in session on 16th June, 2008, and on any other day(s) thereafter, if found necessary by the Court. The Court will be sitting at Municipal Council of Limuru Hall starting at 930 a.m. THE KENYA GAZETTE We have carefully considered the parties foregoing submissions, the annexture thereto and the oral submissions made before the court. The sole question for our determination is whether or not the grievants are entitled to salaries and allowances while on the compulsory unpaid leave. There is no dispute that the grievants were 'sent on compulsory unpaid leave when the Respondent's buses were attached by creditors and eventually sold to recover monies• owed to them by the Respondent. The creditors have also instituted a petition before the High Court for the winding up of the Respondent for inability to pay its debts. The petition is pending for hearing. - The Respondent apparently thought that the legal battles with the creditors would be concluded quickly in view of the fact that it initially sent the grievants on unpaid leave for short periods in 2005. When it dawned on the Respondent that the battle would take long it sent the grievants on indefinite compulsory unpaid leave. The union contends that compulsory unpaid leave is not provided for in the parties Collective Bargaining Agreement and therefore the Respondent's action is illegal. In the circumstances the union avers that they remain employees of the Respondent and are entitled to their monthly wages and other emoluments. The Respondent had the option to terminate the grievants' services either through redundancy or early retirement but it opted not to terminate their services so as to avoid paying appropriate terminal benefits. The Respondent did not resist the union's demand. Mrs. Onyango for the Respondent told the court that the grievants remain the Respondent's employees and that the Respondent hopes to return to business once the myriad cases in court with its creditors are resolved, It also expects the Government as a stakeholder in the transport of city residents to bail out The company. The Respondent added that it has not refused to pay what the union claims. It has-been frustrated by lack of funds as its cash flow is so little. It was pointed out that the Respondent deposited KSh. 500,000 at the labour office for distribution to the grievants. Thereafter it has paid a further sum of KSh. 5,146,610.80 to some grievants who were in need and will continue to make further payments when funds become available. The Respondent cannot declare the grievants redundant or terminate their services in any other way because it has no funds to pay their terminal dues. Our perusal of the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement shows that compulsory unpaid leave is not provided for. We are also satisfied that none of thy national labour legislation provides for the same. In the circumstances- we agree with the union that the unpaid leave herein is an illegal measure. Since the Respondent has lost its tools of trade, the logical thing to do was to declare the grievants redundant and settle their redundancy dues. It is unconscionable to subject the grievants to an indefinite period of unpaid leave. Although the Respondent has not said it, it is obvious that it is hoping that the outcome of the winding up petition will considerably reduce its burden in this matter as it will only pay to each grievant the statutory KSh. 4,000 stipulated in the Companies Act. In view of the- colossal sums of money that the Respondent owes its creditors only a miracle will dissuade the court from ordering the winding up of the Respondent. In view of the parties meeting of minds as regards the union's claim, we are inclined to uphold the Minister's findings and recommendations that the grievant should be paid their monthly emoluments. Indeed in one of the notices served on the grievants, the Respondent expressly pledged that the leave entitlement would continue to accrue as a liability on the part of the Respondent to the employees. The same should apply to the wages. The grievants are ready and willing to resume work when called upon to do so. They have been suspended without, pay by the Respondent without their consent and in breach of their contracts of employment. Failure to remunerate the employees in the circumstances is a breach of contract which this court will not condone irrespective of the reasons for the same. Keeping in view the foregoing discussion, we Award and Order that the Respondent should pay the grievants all their wages for the period they have been on compulsory leave. We know that enforcing this award will be an uphill task for the union but we cannot refrain from ordering where the scales of justice should rest as suggested by the Respondent. - The sitting member of the court concurs with this decision. Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 6th day of September, 2007. P, K. KOSGEI, Judge. 30th May, 2008 1303 Individual notice have already been served to the rate objectors requiring them to appear before the Valuation Court and if any reason the said notices have not reached them, this advertisement is meant to serve the same purpose and they are requested to appear for hearing of their objections an the date, time and place stated above. Dated the 20th May, 2008. L N. NYAGA, Town Clerk. GAZE! 1 t NOTIC No. 4496 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (Cap. 265) THE CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI APPOINTMENT IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 260 of the Local Government Act, the City Council of Nairobi appoints Johnestone Bryum Muyuka, Nyagara Nyamwaya, as prosecutors in the Subordinate Courts, City Court, Kibera Law Courts and Makadara Law Courts, with effect from 29th April, 2008. Dated the 29th April, 2008. N. W. OTIDO, for Town Clerk. GAZEI NOTI NO. 4697 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (Cap. 265) THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF WARENG THE UASIN GISHU TRADE DEVELOPMENT JOINT LOANS BOARD APPOINTMENT IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 104 (3) of the Local Government (Uasin Gishu Trade Development Joint Loan Board) Order, 1965, the County Council of Wareng appoints— Cllr. Josephine Tarus, Cllr. Julius Kipngetich Koech, Cllr. Joseph Kipketer Koech, to be members of the Uasin Gishu Trade Development Joint Loans, Board, for a period of three (3) years. Dated the 15th May, 2008. A. 0. APIDI, County Clerk. GAZEI 1 E NOTIC . No. 4698 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (Cap. 265) THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF MASAKU THE MASAKU TRADE DEVELOPMENT JOINT LOANS BOARD APPOINTMENT IN EXERCISE of the powers conferred by section 104 (3) of the Local Government Act, the County Council of Masaku appoints— Cllr. Tabitha Mbithe Ndeti, Alfonce M. Tama, Cllr. Justus Kimeu Muvea, to be members of the Masaku Trade Development Joint Loans Board. Dated the 20th May, 2008. P. M. MUTEMI, Acting County Clerk. GAZETTE NOTICE. No. 4699 CATE AUTO GARAGE DISPOSAL OF UNCOLLECTED GOODS NOTICE is given pursuant to the provisions of the Disposal of Uncollected Goods Act (Cap. 38) of the laws of Kenya, to the owners of the following vehicles- Isuzu NPR, reg. No. KAA 830Y, Nissan E23, reg. No. KAG 314Q Isuzu NPR, reg. No. KAG 384Y, Isuzu NKR, reg. No. KAH 550G, Honda Accord, reg. No. KXE 077, Peugeot 505, reg. No. KUW 032, Peugeot 404, reg. No. KXM 564, to collect said motor vehicles from the premises of Cate Auto Garage, P.O. Box 68451-00622, Nairobi, situated along Juja Road, Nairobi, within thirty (30) -days from the date of publication of this notice upon payment of all outstanding repairs and storage charges, failure to which the same shall be sold either by public auction or private treaty, and the proceeds shall be defrayed against all charges without any further reference to the owners. Dated the 12th May, 2008. GITHINJI VICTOR & COMPANY, Advocates for Cate Auto Garage. GAZE NOTICE. No. 4700 DIASTAR AUTOCARE CENTRE LIMITED DISPOSAL OF UNCOLLECTED GOODS NOTICE is given pursuant to the provisions of the Disposal of Uncollected Goods Act (Cap. 38) of the laws of Kenya, to the owners of the following vehicles— Nissan B12, reg. No. KAD 928G, Mercedes Benz 280, reg. No. KVS 117, to collect said motor vehicles from the premises of Diastar Autocare Centre Limited, situated along Enterprise Road, Nairobi, within thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice upon payment of all outstanding repairs, storage and related charges, failure to which the said motor vehicles will be sold either by public auction or private treaty, without further notice, and the proceeds shall be defrayed against all accrued charges without any further reference to the owners. SAMUEL GITAKA, Marketing Co-ordinator. GAZE I rt.NOTICE. No. 4701 LENNOX INVESTMENTS LIMITED DISPOSAL OF UNCOLLECTED GOODS NOTICE is given pursuant to the provisions of the Disposals of Uncollected Goods Act (Cap. 38) of the laws of Kenya, to the owners of unclaimed laundry after three months from the date of receipt with Lennox Dry Cleaners, Nairobi, within thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice upon payment of outstanding storage charges including the cost of publishing this notice, failure to which the said goods will be sold either by public auction or private treaty, and the proceeds shall be defrayed against all accrued charges, and the balance, if any, shall remain at the owners credit, but should there be a shortfall, the owners shall be liable thereof. Dated the 20th May, 2008. DORCAS W. KUNG'U, Director. GAZEI t> NOTICE. No. 4702 SHAURI MOYO GARAGE DISPOSAL OF UNCOLLECTED GOODS NOTICE is issued pursuant to the provisions of the Disposals of Uncollected Goods Act (Cap. 38) of the laws of Kenya, to the owner 30th May, 2008 of motor vehicle reg. No. KAC264X, to collect the said motor vehicle from Shauri Moyo Garage, P.O. Box 59587-00200, Nairobi, within thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice upon payment of storage charges, any other costs of this publication, failure to comply with this notice to collect the said motor vehicle shall be- sold by public auction or private treaty without further reference. Dated the 14th May, 2008. KIBUNJA & ASSOCIATES, for Shauri Moyo Garage. GAZE l r h NOTICE No. 4706 THE JUBILEE INSURANCE COMPANY OF KENYA LIMITED Head Office: P.O. Box 30376-00100, Nairobi LOSS OF POLICY Policy No. 147038/5 in the name and on the life of Le Mwiwawi Mwaigacho. APPLICATION has been made to this company for the issue of duplicate of the above-numbered policy. the original having been reported as lost or misplaced. Notice is given that unless objection is , lodged to the contrary at the office of the company. within thirty (30) days from the date of this notice, duplicate policy will be issued„ which will be the sole evidence of the contract. Dated the 13th May, 2008. BWANA, Operations Manager, Life Department. GAZETTE NOTICE. No. 4703 PROMISE AUTO GARAGE DISPOSAL OF UNCOLLECTED GOODS TAKE NOTICE that Messrs. Promise Auto Garage, of P.O. Box 45281, Nairobi, as custodian under contract with Partos Agencies Limited, of P.O. Box 854-00600, Nairobi, View Park Towers, 16th floor, Monrovia Street (herein after called the depositor) shall proceed and sell Toyota Premio, reg. No. KAW 286M, white in colour motor vehicle whose particulars are shown herebelow within the next thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice unless the sum of KSh. 220,000 together with cost of this notice and storage charges accruing at the rate of Ksh. 200 per day since 15th February, 2008, until the motor vehicle is collected. Dated the 15th May, 2008. PROMISE AUTO GARAGE, P.O. Box 45281, Nairobi. GAZETTE NOTICE. NO. 4704 MADISON INSURANCE LOSS OF POLICY Policy No. LL3242691 in the name of Bernard Kithuku Zakayo, of P.O. Box 92015, Mombasa. NOTICE is given that evidence of loss or destruction of the above policy documents has been sumitted to the company and any person in possession of the policy documents or claiming to have interest therein should communicate within thirty (30) days days by registered post with the company, failing any such communication certified copies of the policies which shall be the sole evidence Of the contracts will be issued. . - Dated the 7th May, 2008: M. G. SABALA, Head of Underwriting and Claims, Life.