Rift Valley Railways Workers Union v Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme,Kenya Railways Corporation,Corporate Trustees,Retirement Benefits Authority,Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission,Retirement Benefits Authority & Alexander Forbes (Cause 2289 of 2015) (Employment and Labour) [2018] KEELRC 1260 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court confirmed it can hear pension disputes when the Retirement Benefits Tribunal is not functioning, and temporarily blocked the sale of pension scheme properties.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Functus officio
The court is not functus officio because the ruling of 19th August 2016 only referred the matter to the Retirement Benefits Act mechanism and made no determination on the issues.
The court examined Ndolo J's ruling of 19th August 2016 and found that it made no finding on the preliminary objections or the issues in the suit; its only determination was to refer the matter for resolution under the Retirement Benefits Act. Since no issue had been determined, the court retained authority over the matter.
Jurisdiction where the statutory tribunal is non-functional
This court has jurisdiction over pension matters and must assume it where the Retirement Benefits Tribunal, which should exercise that jurisdiction, is not operational.
Pension matters are employment matters within the court's unlimited original jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act. The Tribunal was not constituted because members' terms had ended and no appointments had been made. The law did not anticipate such a lacuna, and a litigant cannot be left without a remedy because authorities failed to appoint tribunal members.
Locus standi
The claimant union has locus standi as a signatory to the Trust Deed representing its members who are members of the Scheme.
The claimant is a signatory to the Trust Deed of the 1st respondent, and its members are members of the Scheme. That status confers standing to sue on behalf of its members. Since no final determination had been made in the suit, the suit was also not res judicata.
Abuse of court process and res judicata
The claimant has not abused the court process and the suit is not res judicata because no determination has been made on the issues.
Because the matter had been referred to a dysfunctional tribunal and no determination had been made on the issues in the suit, the claimant's return to court to assume jurisdiction in the absence of the Tribunal was not an abuse of process, nor could the suit be res judicata absent a final determination.
Legal principles established
#- Where a tribunal vested with jurisdiction over a dispute is not functional, a court with unlimited original jurisdiction may assume jurisdiction over the dispute; a litigant will not be left without a remedy.
- A court that merely refers a dispute to a statutory dispute resolution mechanism has not made a final determination and is not functus officio.
Court orders
#- 1.Preliminary objections filed by the 1st and 3rd respondents and 4th Interested Party dismissed
- 2.A temporary injunction restraining the 1st respondent or its agents from disposing of any of the properties listed in Legal Notice No. 169 of 2006 pending the hearing and determination of the application dated 19th October 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rift Valley Railways Workers Union v Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme,Kenya Railways Corporation,Corporate Trustees,Retirement Benefits Authority,Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission,Retirement Benefits Authority & Alexander Forbes (Cause 2289 of 2015) (Employment and Labour) [2018] KEELRC 1260 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause 2289 of 2015 (application dated 19th October 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1260/eng@2018-08-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.