NAIROBI, Kenya, July 1, 2025 — A legal dispute has erupted in a high-stakes pension appeal involving over 600 former employees challenging the Retirement Benefits Authority (RBA), after a law firm representing one side accused its counterpart of bypassing proper legal procedure in submitting a draft decree to the tribunal.
The case, Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2021, involves Abdalla Osman and 628 others versus the Retirement Benefits Authority and five other parties.
At the centre of the dispute is an amended draft decree filed by Wanyonyi and Muhia Advocates, which includes a clause on Party and Party Costs—a legal provision that determines who bears the cost of litigation.
However, the decree is now facing resistance from Oraro and Company Advocates, who argue that they were not consulted on the amendment, as required under Order 21 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
In a letter dated June 18, 2025, addressed to the Chairperson of the Retirement Benefits Appeals Tribunal, Oraro and Company said the draft decree should have been shared for approval before submission to the tribunal.
“The amended draft was not sent to us for approval or comment before being forwarded to you as required,” the letter stated. “Party and Party Costs are yet to be assessed or taxed, nor has a Certificate of Taxation or Costs been shared with us.”
The lawyers further argue that no formal bill of costs has been filed, and there has been no taxation—a process in which the court or tribunal determines the reasonable legal costs owed by one party to another.
They add that any award of costs should conform to Rule 14 of the Retirement Benefits (Tribunal) Rules, which grants the tribunal discretion based on a defined scale of costs.
The ongoing appeal does not centre around a specific monetary award payable to the appellants, but rather the methodology used to calculate pension dues.
A previously quantified amount—Sh1.125 billion—was refunded to the pension scheme itself, not directly to the claimants. As such, Oraro and Company contend that there is no clear basis for claiming Party and Party Costs at this stage of the proceedings.
To bolster their argument, the firm referenced several court decisions, including Kenya Airports Authority v. Otieno and Ragot Advocates and Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v. Bawazir Glass Works Ltd, where courts underscored the importance of due process in cost assessment.
The cited judgments stress that courts must not impose costs without proper taxation or the opportunity for both parties to be heard.
Legal observers say the tribunal’s decision on whether to allow the amended decree as currently drafted could have broader implications for how costs are handled in pension-related appeals, particularly those involving large groups of claimants and regulatory bodies.
The case is being closely watched by industry insiders, legal practitioners, and retirees alike, as it may influence how future appeals are managed in relation to cost liability and transparency.
For now, the matter lies with the Tribunal, which will rule on the validity of the draft decree and whether Party and Party Costs can be included without taxation. Its decision could set a key precedent on procedural compliance in civil appeals involving pension schemes and statutory regulators.
