Court Rejects Bid to Reopen KBC Pension Fight Over KSh1.51 Billion Consent

Justice Hellen Wasilwa has blocked pensioners’ attempt to reopen the KBC dispute, leaving the KSh1.51 billion consent intact.

The Employment and Labour Relations Court has rejected a bid to reopen a long-running KBC pension dispute.

Justice Hellen Wasilwa ruled that the substantive dispute had already been substantially determined.

She consequently found the court functus officio and rejected the pensioners’ bid for joinder.

The ruling leaves intact a consent adopted by the court on March 9, 2026.

That consent settled the outstanding computation dispute between KBC and its pension scheme.

The agreed figure stood at KSh1.511 billion, following years of litigation over pension contributions.

The dispute had previously involved competing calculations exceeding KSh18 billion.

Justice Wasilwa delivered the latest ruling on September 16, 2026, in Nairobi.

Billions Apart

The pension scheme initially filed a computation of KSh18.421 billion after the 2022 judgement.

KBC separately calculated its liability at approximately KSh18.046 billion after the same judgement.

The huge gap soon became central to a bitter dispute involving trustees, KBC and advocates.

The applicants argued that the judgement required compound interest at three per cent monthly.

They said the calculation covered unremitted contributions and rental income between 2008 and 2018.

They further claimed costs and other financial components had been improperly excluded.

The applicants calculated that the KSh1.511 billion settlement represented a dramatic reduction.

They placed the reduction at about 91.8 per cent from the scheme’s earlier computation.

Their challenge therefore questioned whether the consent faithfully implemented Justice Maureen Onyango’s judgement.

However, Justice Wasilwa did not determine which competing calculation represented the correct legal liability.

That distinction became crucial because the court was considering procedure rather than the underlying financial dispute.

A January 14, 2026, ruling had already addressed related disputes surrounding the scheme’s representation.

The court allowed the scheme to change advocates and pursue its computation.

That development provided important context before the January consent and March adoption.

Pensioners Protest

Kennedy Epalat and Dominic Tom Orenge approached court as members of the pension scheme.

Epalat had worked for KBC before retiring in October 2024, according to the court record.

He told the court that his retirement lump sum remained unpaid after leaving employment.

The applicants argued that the disputed settlement directly affected their financial interests.

They therefore sought joinder under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

They also wanted the execution of the consent suspended pending the determination of their challenge.

Further, they sought fresh verification and reconciliation of the competing computations.

Their argument rested partly on the proposition that beneficiaries can intervene in exceptional circumstances.

They alleged the trustees had compromised substantial scheme interests without adequate membership participation.

The applicants also raised concerns about how the disputed computation had eventually been reduced.

However, this ruling did not ultimately resolve the contested claims.

The court instead focused on whether the applicants could reopen concluded proceedings.

Trustees Fight Back

The pension scheme opposed the application, arguing that trustees already represented the entire membership.

Its lawyers said individual beneficiaries could not establish parallel representation merely through disagreement.

The scheme also challenged allegations surrounding Epalat’s supporting affidavit.

It said a DCI complaint alleged that financial inducements influenced his participation.

Those allegations remained disputed and had not been judicially established.

Former advocate Morara Omoke denied promising financial benefits to either applicant.

He maintained that he had faithfully represented the scheme during the earlier proceedings.

KBC also offered a different interpretation of the figures driving the controversy.

It argued that the statutory three per cent penalty applied only to employee deductions.

Applying that penalty across every component, KBC argued, inflated the eventual computation.

That disagreement remained unresolved because the September ruling addressed the procedural application.

Justice Wasilwa, therefore, did not determine whether KBC or the applicants had correctly interpreted Section 53.

Court Draws Line

The judge acknowledged that the applicants could be affected financially by the outcome.

But she found that financial interest alone could not revive proceedings already substantially determined.

Justice Onyango had delivered judgement on April 27, 2022, determining the substantive dispute.

What remained afterward was computation of the amounts payable under that judgement.

The parties subsequently entered a consent dated January 15, 2026.

The court adopted that consent on March 9, 2026, bringing the computation dispute before it to a close.

Justice Wasilwa found no substantive issue remained requiring intervention by the applicants.

“My view is that this court has substantially determined this cause,” she stated.

She added that there was “no other issue pending” requiring the applicants’ participation.

The court consequently found itself functus officio and declined to reopen the matter.

That doctrine effectively prevented the pensioners from reviving concluded proceedings through joinder.

Justice Wasilwa therefore dismissed the application and declined the additional prayers sought.

Those prayers included setting aside the consent and ordering fresh verification of computations.

She ordered that costs would remain in the cause.

The ruling does not establish that KSh1.511 billion was mathematically the correct pension liability.

It also does not determine that the earlier KSh18.421 billion computation was legally payable.

Nor does it resolve allegations concerning collusion, fiduciary breaches or improper conduct.

Instead, the ruling establishes a narrower procedural point about the concluded proceedings.

READ ALSO: Mambo Mbotela is Dead

The court has effectively closed this particular route for challenging the March consent.

However, the dispute may not yet be legally finished.

The ruling records that Morara Omoke had already filed a notice of appeal against the March adoption.

For pensioners, the financial stakes remain significant as the wider dispute continues.

But Justice Wasilwa has drawn a firm procedural boundary around the original cause.

The pension battle that began in 2018 has therefore entered another legal chapter.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.