Fredrick Okwomi Anyasi & 4 others v Kenya Railways Retrement Benefits Scheme & another [2020] KEELC 1599 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court struck out a pension dispute petition because the members skipped the mandatory review and appeal steps set out in the Retirement Benefits Act before going to court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the constitutional petition given statutory and contractual dispute resolution mechanisms
The petition was premature and stood to be struck out because the petitioners had not exhausted the dispute resolution mechanisms under section 46 and 48 of the Retirement Benefits Act and Clause 34 of the Trust Deed
Section 46 of the Retirement Benefits Act allows a dissatisfied scheme member to seek review of a trustee's decision by the RBA Chief Executive Officer, and section 48 provides appeal to the Tribunal. Clause 34 of the Trust Deed provides for arbitration. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the trustees' decision to dispose of assets, ignored these primary mechanisms and moved the court prematurely. Following Njenga Karume and Kibos Distillers, the court held the exhaustion principle applies and constitutional drafting cannot confer jurisdiction. The petition was struck out without merits findings.
Whether the court should pronounce on the merits of the dispute
The court declined to make any pronouncement on the merits to avoid prejudicing the parties before the primary dispute resolution fora
Having found the petition premature and struck it out for want of jurisdiction, the judge reasoned that any findings on the merits of the trustees' proposed asset disposal could prejudice the petitioners or the trustees in the statutory review and tribunal proceedings they must now pursue. The court therefore confined itself to the jurisdictional question and costs, leaving all substantive questions to the appropriate fora.
Legal principles established
#- Whenever a question of jurisdiction is raised, the court must dispose of that question before dealing further with the matter
- Where a clear procedure for redress of a particular grievance is prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be exhausted before invoking the court's jurisdiction
- A party cannot confer jurisdiction on a court by the craft of pleadings; original constitutional jurisdiction does not oust the jurisdiction of other competent organs
Court orders
#- 1.The respondents' objection to the jurisdiction of the court was upheld and the petition was struck out
- 2.The petitioners' notice of motion dated 8/5/2020 was disposed of by the striking out of the petition
- 3.Parties to bear their respective costs of the petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court (petition brought under Articles 10, 35, 40, 43, 47, 57 and 64 of the Constitution of Kenya), challenged on exhaustion-of-remedies grounds under the Retirement Benefits Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Ogando v Kenya Ports Authority Pension Scheme (Defined Benefits) & another[2023] KEELC 18544 (KLR)29 May 2023
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Fredrick Okwomi Anyasi & 4 others v Kenya Railways Retrement Benefits Scheme & another [2020] KEELC 1599 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Petition dated 8/5/2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1599/eng@2020-07-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.