Local Authorities Pensions Trust (Laptrust) v Chairman Retirement Benefits Appeal Tribunal & 2 others [2019] KECA 735 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal dismissed LAPTRUST's appeal, confirming that tribunals can interpret their own judgments and that parties who stay silent during hearings cannot later cry foul.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellant was granted a fair hearing by the 1st respondent, in conformity with the rules of natural justice
- 2.Whether the 1st respondent was functus officio after delivery of its judgment of 27th July 2011
- 3.Whether the actuary report adopted by the Tribunal in interpreting its judgment was factual or evidentiary, and whether the actuary was qualified
- 4.Whether judicial review was the appropriate remedy for the appellant
Key legal issues
#Whether the Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice in hearing the interpretation application without a response from LAPTRUST
No breach. LAPTRUST and its counsel were served and appeared but chose not to file a response or submissions; a litigant may decline to participate, and no affidavit evidenced any mistake of counsel.
The Tribunal proceedings showed the appellant's counsel appeared but made no response or submissions to the served application and actuary's report. The court held natural justice requires only an opportunity to be heard, not forced participation. The alternative mistake-of-counsel argument had no evidential foundation and 'simply hangs in the air'. The trial court's detailed findings were affirmed on re-examination as a first appeal.
Whether the Tribunal was functus officio when it interpreted its judgment and adopted the actuary's figures
No. The Tribunal's judgment contained a liberty-to-apply order reserving power to re-engage, and the application was for interpretation and computation of figures, not a substantive merits re-engagement.
Applying the Raila Odinga and Telkom Kenya explanations, functus officio bars merit-based re-engagement after final judgment but not correction of errors or interpretive engagement. The liberty-to-apply order expressly reserved the Tribunal's power. The second respondent was merely asking how much was owed under the judgment so he could execute; the actuary's figures brought the judgment to finality. The appellant filed no objections and its calculations had already been rejected without challenge.
Whether the actuary's report was inadmissible evidence and whether its methodology could be attacked via judicial review
The report was a tool to aid interpretation, not evidential material on a contested fact; challenges to its veracity, the actuary's qualifications and methodology go to the merits and are not cognizable in judicial review.
Relying on Staff Pension Fund v Ann Wangui Ngugi, no appeal lies from the Retirement Benefits Tribunal, so the appellant could not convert a merits complaint into judicial review. Following Puhlhofer v Hillingdon, where fact-finding is entrusted to a public body, the court intervenes only for perversity. The trial court found the Tribunal had scrutinised the report for compliance with its rules, and no rule or authority was shown to be violated.
Whether judicial review was the appropriate remedy and whether the appellate court could interfere with the discretionary refusal
Judicial review was inappropriate for merits complaints, and the appellate court would not disturb the discretionary exercise absent misdirection or plainly wrong conclusion.
As a first appeal the court reconsidered in the manner of a retrial, but judicial review is discretionary and appellate interference is limited to the United India Insurance parameters. Judicial review orders are discretionary and may be refused where the remedy is not efficacious or would serve no practical purpose. The trial judge had properly confined himself to process, not merits.
Legal principles established
#- A decision-maker bearing the obligation of natural justice need only afford parties an opportunity to be heard; it need not compel participation, and a party that declines to respond cannot later claim breach of audi alteram partem
- Functus officio does not bar a tribunal that has expressly reserved liberty to apply from re-engaging with its judgment for interpretation and computation of figures due; the bar is only on merit-based re-engagement
- There is no right of appeal from a decision of the Retirement Benefits Tribunal, and such a right cannot be implied; complaints about the merits (including the evidential weight or methodology of an actuary's report) are matters for appeal, not judicial review
- An appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary judicial review decision unless the judge misdirected himself in law, misapprehended the facts, took into account irrelevant considerations, failed to take relevant ones into account, or the decision is plainly wrong
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Judicial Review Misc. Appl. No. 403 of 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from a High Court judicial review decision (Civil Procedure Act and appellate jurisdiction over judicial review orders)
Relief refused
#The appellant's appeal against the refusal of certiorari to quash the Tribunal's ruling of 19th October 2012
The Tribunal complied with natural justice and was not functus officio, having reserved liberty to apply; the complaints went to the merits, which are not reviewable
Costs
The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
All that is required of a body exercising judicial authority is to give an opportunity to the parties before it to be heard. There is no further requirement to use coercive powers to open the mouths of the litigants.
the one order made by the Tribunal that torpedoes the accusation that the Tribunal was functus officio is the liberty given to the parties to apply before the same Tribunal in relation to the judgment.
The upshot is that this appeal has no merits and we order that it be and is hereby dismissed with costs.
The litigants are at liberty to decline any hearing and it is apparent in this matter that counsel expressed no wish to oppose the application before the Tribunal.
The 2 nd respondent was simply asking the Tribunal: 'How much is owed to me in accordance with your judgment so that I can execute for it'. It follows that the unquestioned figures placed before the Tribunal by an expert, brought to finality the judgment of the Tribunal.
Issues in the judgment
#Contradictory dates for the High Court decision: the appeal header states the judgment was 'delivered on 5 th July, 2013' while the body states the application was 'heard and dismissed by Odunga, J. on 19 th October, 2012' (the latter being the date of the Tribunal ruling).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Local Authorities Pensions Trust (Laptrust) v Chairman Retirement Benefits Appeal Tribunal & 2 others [2019] KECA 735 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Appeal No. 284 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/735/eng@2019-05-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.