SMEP Retirement Benefits Trustees v Retirement Benefits Authority & Retirement Benefits Appeals Tribunal [2017] KEHC 6136 (KLR) | Judicial Review Of Tribunal Decisions | Esheria

SMEP Retirement Benefits Trustees v Retirement Benefits Authority & Retirement Benefits Appeals Tribunal [2017] KEHC 6136 (KLR)

Full Case Text

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  40 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 53 RULES 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS ACT CAP 127 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA

AND

IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION BY THE RETIREMENT  BENEFITS APPEALS  TRIBUNAL  DATED  8TH AUGUST, 2014  CONFIRMING/UPHOLDING  A DECISION  OF  THE RETIREMENT  BENEFITS AUTHORITY  DATED  12TH  JULY, 2013.

SMEP RETIREMENT BENEFITS TRUSTEES ……………...…...APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS AUTHORITY…….............1ST RESPONDENT

THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS APPEALS TRIBUNAL…2ND RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. On 11th March 2015 Honourable Korir  J granted  to  the exparte  applicant  herein  SMEP Retirement Benefits  Trustees  leave to  apply for Judicial Review orders and directed that the substantive  motion be filed  and served within  21  days thereof.

2. On 1st April 2015  which  was  the  21st day  from the date  of leave, the exparte  applicant  filed notice  of motion dated  30th  March 2015  seeking the following  judicial  review orders:

a. An order of certiorari to remove to the High Court  for  purposes  of being quashed the decision of the retirement Benefits  appeals  Tribunal ( the 2nd respondent) dated  8th August  2014  dismissing  the  exparte  applicant’s  appeal and  upholding  the decision of the Retirement Benefits Authority dated 8th July 2013 requiring the exparte applicant to compute  and  pay  the  interested party  and  other members  of the SMEP Retirements  Benefits Scheme  dues  on the erroneous Trust Teed  dated  30th November  2005.

b. An order of mandamusdirected  at the Retirement  Benefits   Authority  the  1st respondent  to rectify  clause  2:11dealing with  Founders’  contributions  in the Trust  Deed  dated  30th November  2005 to capture  the capping of the   Founders contributions  of kshs  3,750  to reflect  the intention of the parties.

c. An order  of  prohibitionprohibiting  the  1st  respondent  from requiring the first applicant to reconcile the  contributions for all affected members including the  interested party in accordance with the  approved  but erroneous  Trust Deed  and  Rules dated  30th November  2005  and to pay  the affected  members pension  based on the 10% contribution element without capping the contribution  element  to kshs  3,750 as intended  by the parties.

d. That costs be provided for.

3. The notice  of motion is supported by the statutory  statement  filed on  6th February   2015,  the verifying  affidavit  and  supporting  affidavit of  Dr. Joseph Muriu sworn  on 6th February  2015,  the annextures  thereto  and  other grounds   as  were canvassed  and as deposed in the further  affidavit  filed on  7th March  2016 in response  to the affidavits filed by the interested party and the 1st  respondent.

4. The exparte applicant’s case as contained in the statutory  statement  and  as deposed  in the supporting  and  verifying  affidavit  of Dr. Joseph  Muriu   the chairman Board  of Trustees  of the exparte applicant  is that   in the year  2006, the exparte  applicant the precursor  of SMEP DTM Ltd  voluntarily  founded for SMEP Retirements Benefits Scheme  for the benefit  of  the employees  of SMEP after it  became  autonomous  from the National  Council of Churches  of Kenya  in which  it had been  a department.

5. That at the  time of  founding the scheme  and  before  the  Trustee Deed was registered, the  trustees  and  the sponsor  discussed  a series  of a draft  Trust  Deed  Rules which  are dated  14th September  2005  and  16th November  2005  respectively.

6. That  during  the  preparation of the  Trust Deed  and Rules, SMEP  as  employer  and  founder  agreed  to contribute 10% of the members’ basic salary subject to a maximum  of  kshs  3750  while  the members contribution  was pegged  at 10% of the basic  salary subject to a  maximum  of kshs  3750.

7. That at the time of executing and registering the Trust Deed and Rules dated  30th November  2006, the Trustees, the  founder and the members  knew that  the intention  was to cap both the  employer’s  contribution at  10%  of the monthly  salary subject  to a maximum  of kshs  3750.

8. That after the registration of the Trust Deed  and Rules, the sponsor/employer  deducted   and  remitted the  employer’s  and  employee’s contributions at the  rate  of 10%  of the employee’s salary  subject to a maximum  of kshs  3750.

9. That the deductions  continued  until  9th November  2011 when the Trust Deed  and  Rules  were  amended  and the maximum  monthly  contribution capped  at kshs  4875.

10. That the interested party herein Rose Wanyama was not only a member   of the scheme but also a trustee before she left employment with the sponsor in 2010.

11. That it   was after the interested  party had left  her employment  that she   was  paid her  pension dues  based on  the monthly  contributions  remitted by the employer  that she  lodged a complaint  with the Retirement  Benefits Authority, the 1st  respondent  herein claiming that  she  was  entitled to  payment  of pension based on 10% of the employee’s salary without capping, which claim  was disputed by  the exparte applicant on the  basis that:

The  Trust Deed  and Rules dated  30th November  2006  did not  reflect  the intention  of the parties in  the draft  Trust Deed  and  Rules and the conduct of the parties subsequent to the registration of the  Trust Deed.

That the  interested party  was  not only a member of the scheme but also a trustee  and it  was  inequitable for  her to seek  to benefit  from an error  in the Trust Deed  and Rules  which  she  was aware  of as a former trustee of the scheme.

That paying the interested parties and the other scheme   members as directed by the 2nd respondent would cripple  and destroy  the entire  scheme  as the trustees  do not  have any  other funds  other than the funds  actually deducted  by the sponsor  and  remitted  to the scheme  managers  for investment.

That following  the complaint  which  was  considered by the 2nd respondent Retirement  Benefits  Appeals  Tribunal, the  latter  ordered that the exparte applicants do re-compute  the members’ dues  based on the erroneous provision of the registered  Trust Deed  and Rules.

That an appeal  to the 1st  respondent  saw a decision/judgment  dated 8th August  2014  dismissing the applicant’s  appeal, while upholding  the  2nd respondent decision  and  requiring both the applicants  and the 2nd  respondent  to abide by  the provisions  of the erroneous  Trust Deed  and Rules.

12. According  to the exparte applicant,  it  was not  accorded a hearing  and that the  decision  reached   was contrary  to the Rules of Natural Justice  in  that the  1st respondent  directed the  parties  to proceed  by way  of submissions  only to turn around and blame the applicants for not calling evidence in the judgment.

13. Further, that the  decisions  reached by  the respondents  are contrary to the  principle of voluntary pension Scheme  in that it seeks  to compel trustees  to compute  pension dues  based on  contributions which the  employer  did not  agree to or  promise its employees  (members  of the scheme).

14. It is also averred by the exparte applicant that the  decisions  of the respondents  are unreasonable and incapable of performance in that the  applicants  are required  to compute  pension dues on the basis of  contributions which  were neither  deducted nor  remitted  and invested.

15. Further, that the decisions of the respondents  are tainted  with bias  and  go against statutory provisions  which obligated  the respondents  to be objective  and   safeguard  the  interests of  not only  the members  of the scheme but those  of the sponsors  as well.

16. It  was therefore  claimed that it  was  unfair  for the respondents to  require the exparte  applicants to pay to  the interested  party the sponsors  contributions  on the basis of  10%  of basic  salary  when the  amount  actually  remitted were to the  complainants knowledge  capped at the same  level.

17. The interested party in this  case  was employed by NCCK  vide letter of appointment  dated  6th  January  1997  as an Assistant  Accountant.

18. The impugned  decision is annexed  as JM 3 on page  381  of the bundle  for  chamber  summons for  leave filed on  5th February  2015; The  Trust Deed, deed of appointment  of the interested party as  trustee, interested party’s  pays lip, computation and  payment  of retirement  benefits   due to the   interested party  on  29th December  2010;  cheque payment   dated  16th December  2010 at pages  192  and  193  of the chamber summons  bundle  among other  documents.

19. The 1st respondent  filed a  replying  affidavit  sworn by Dr. Edward  Odundo  the Chief  Executive  Officer  of Retirement Benefits  Authority (RBA) on 8th June  2015   deposing  that Section  5  of the Retirement Benefits Authority Act mandates  the  Authority  to protect  the  interests of  members  and  sponsors  of retirement  benefit sector; promote  the  development  of the retirement   benefits  sector; advise the Minister  on the national  policy to be followed  with regard to retirement  benefits   schemes  and to implement  all  Government policies  relating  thereto   and to perform  such other  functions   as  are conferred  on it by the Act  or by  any other  written law.

20. That the  applicant  is a  Retirement  Benefits  Scheme  duly registered  as such pursuant  to Section  23(1)  of the Retirement  Benefits  Authority  Act  and  Regulation  4(1)  of the Retirement Benefits (Occupational Retirement Benefits Schemes) Regulations, 2000.

21. That following  such  registration, on 30th November 2005  the applicant  lodged   with the Authority  its Trust Deed  and Rules  pursuant to Section  23   of the Retirement Benefits Authority Act and Regulation 7  of the Regulations  2000.

22. That on  2nd February 2013  the  1st respondent  received  a complaint  letter from the  interested party dated  1st  February  2013  to the effect  that she complained  of  nonpayment  and  non-remittance by the applicant  of her  retirement  benefits  following  her contributions in  line with  the Trust Deed.

23. That the interested party  was  at all  material  times an  employee  of the applicant  and contributed  to the scheme  as required by the Trust Deed and Rules  up to 22nd  October  2010  when she  resigned  from the applicant’s  employment   and  sought  her retirement   dues.

24. That the applicant refused to compute  and  pay the  interested  party her  retirements  benefits  as  set out  in the Schemes Trust Deed  and Rules  filed with  the authority  on  30th November 2005.

25. That Clause  2:8  of the registered  Trust Deed   was clear  that every member  shall (sic)  as  a minimum  basic  contribution at the rate  of 10%  of his basic pay; clause  2:11(a)  provided that  the founder shall contribute   towards  the  scheme  a minimum   of  10%  of the members  basic salary.

26. That the Authority  did on  12th July  2013   order the applicant  to reconcile   contributions for all affected members  including  the interested  party in accordance  with the  approved  Trust Deed  Rules dated 30th  November  2005  and  to send to Retirement Benefits Authority a schedule  containing  the correct computations  for all affected  members,  the correct  pension based on  10%  contribution  as provided  for in the 2005  Trust Deed.

27. That a review  application  was dismissed  on 12th July  2012  as the  Retirement Benefits Authority  could not act contrary to the express provisions of the applicant’s Trust Deed  and Rules.

28. That the  decision  of Retirement  Benefits  Authority  of  12th July  2012   was appealed  against before  the  2nd respondent  Retirement  Benefits  Authority  Tribunal, which latter upheld  the  1st respondent’s  decision on 8th August  2014   and that it   was indeed  the obligation  of the Trustees, pursuant  to Regulations 8(2) (g) and  (1)  of the Retirement  Benefits  Authority Regulations  2000 to ensure  that contributions  were made  based on correct  pensionable  emoluments  and that the  same  remitted  to the custodian  of the scheme  and duly  paid out  when due.

29. That besides   the Trust Deed and Rules of 30th November 2005, there are no other Trust Deed   or Rules hence it was upon the  applicants to ensure  that proper  documents  were filed  with the Retirement  Benefits  Authority  and   not to blame  the interested  party who  was one of its  staff and who was  an innocent  scheme  beneficiary. It was also contended that the parties  were  bound by  a registered  Trust Deed and not any other unregistered  instrument  and that  the  interested  party  had  a legitimate  benefit  to her  dues  lawfully  owed to her.

30. According  to the  1st respondent  party, the applicant   has not  demonstrated  how their  decision was ultra vires  or  unreasonable  and that the applicant is rather  challenging  the decision of the  respondents  on misconception on a point of law  that the decision  was wrong  on facts  hence there  are  no sufficient  reasons to  warrant  grant of the Judicial Review  orders sought, considering that  Regulations are  applicable  to all schemes throughout  the country  and  do not  discriminate  against anyone.

31. The 1st respondent urged the court to dismiss the notice of motion.

32. In rejoinder affidavit sworn by Violet Awori one of the  applicant’s  trustees  on 7th  March  2016, the exparte  applicant  annexed  copy of deed  of  appointment   of the interested  party and  her pay slip  showing the deductions  made and  remitted to the scheme  while maintaining  that the interested party  knew all through  that the contribution of a maximum of kshs  3750  was a practice  inherited  from her previous  employer,  the NCCK.

33. Further, that as a trustee, the interested party participated  in meetings  of the Board of Trustees in which  the capping  of the employer’s  contribution  at kshs  3750  was highlighted  and that one  such meeting   was on  7th August 2009  vide Minute No. 11/2009.

34. In addition, that the interested party’s pension dues were computed  and paid to the  interested  party  in accordance with the  actual contributions  invested  in the scheme  long before  the interested party made her  complaint  to the 1st  respondent.

35. It was  further deposed  that the first  respondent  has a  statutory  duty to protect  both the  sponsors  and  members of the scheme  and the 1st respondent’s decision  to require the  applicant to  compute  the member’s  dues  on  a basis  that  was  not on contemplation by the parties  is not  only patently unfair  but clearly unreasonable.

36. The exparte  applicant  maintained that it is not the duty of the 1st respondent  to confer  a benefit   to the interested party  or any  other members of the scheme  on the  basis of  a mistake  in a Trust Deed but to  implement  the manifest   intention  of both  the sponsor  and the scheme  members. That therefore  the  decision of the  1st respondent  is ultra vires its mandate  and statutory  duty to safeguard  the  interest  of both the  sponsors  and  members of a Voluntary  Retirement  and  Benefit  Scheme.

37. The 2nd respondent did not file any response to the exparte applicant’s application. Parties agreed and filed written submissions which they also highlighted orally.

38. In the exparte  applicant’s   submissions filed on  28th May  2015   dated  20th  April  2015, the exparte  applicant’s  counsel  Mr Kairaria  submitted that  there is an  error  in the Trust Deed  dated 30th November 2005 which error relates to  the contribution aspect  as far as  the  founder’s contributions  were concerned.  That although clause 2: 11 of the  Trust Deed  on the Founder’s contributions states that the Founder shall contribute  towards the  scheme a minimum of ten  percent (10%)  of the member’s salary  and that  despite  clause 2:8  of the Trustee Deed  stipulating that  every member shall, subject  to the provisions of rules 2:9 and  2:10  make, as from the  date of becoming a member, a minimum  basic  contribution at the rate of 10%  of his  basic salary, the intention  of the parties  is contained  in the Rules  which  were  yet  to be registered. Further, that it was the practice from  2005-2011 when the  figure for  contributions  was adjusted  and  remitted  to the investment Fund.

39. That all  this information on the amount of contributions  was within the  knowledge  of all  employees  as per the  member’s  information  hand book  and that the  interested party  having been  a trustee employee, she knew  from 2009  until  she resigned  in 2010  that  10%  of her salary  had never been deducted  and or remitted to the scheme   for   investment.

40. That the error  in the Trust Fund   was discovered  in  2009 and that  the same  was discussed  with a view to  rectifying  it but it had not been rectified  as  at  2010  when the interested party  resigned  and  her final  dues computed  and paid  to her on the basis  of the actual contributions  made and  remitted  and  not  the  100% envisaged in the Trust Deed and her letter of appointment.  That even her pay slip shows clearly that only shs  3750. 00   monthly was deducted  and not  10%  of her basic  salary.

41. According to the exparte  applicant, the  1st respondent’s finding   that  the contributions for members be pegged  at  10%  as  per the Trust  Deed  as registered  and reconciliation  of all  affected members’  dues  including  the interested  party  herein  was erroneous.

42. Counsel for the  applicant maintained  that effecting  what  was in the registered  Trust  Deed would  negatively  affect the scheme  since  those funds  being claimed   were not collected  from the  employees  and remitted  for investment.  Mr Kairaria  urged the court to  quash the decision  of the tribunal (2nd respondent) since under Section  5  of the Retirement Benefits Authority  Act, the Authority  is mandated  to protect  interests  of  both members  and  the scheme  which means that the  Authority  should  effect  actual  intentions of   parties  since the  scheme  is a voluntary  one based  on what is  agreed by  the parties  and not  set by the law.

43. Mr Kairaria submitted that is it not proper to insist  that parties  are bound by  an error  regardless of their intentions  and actions.  Further, that  where an  error  occurred  at the point of  registration the appropriate  remedy is to rectify that   error  on the document.  That the amendments contemplated in the Regulations reflect a change of mind.  It  was  submitted that the authority  failed to act in accordance  with the  law  relating   to rectification  of documents  and that the  impugned  decision does not  consider  the  negative  effect that the  implementation  of the decision  does not  consider  the negative  effect that  the implementation of the decision will have on the scheme.  That the  funds are not kept   by the applicant  but invested  with the  Fund Manager  based on contributions  hence the whole  scheme will be  bankrupt  if the decision  is implemented.

44. In addition, it was submitted by Mr Kairaria that the impugned  decision confers  a benefit  to the 1st  interested  party and  to all other  members  who had  not complained, which  benefit  had not  been agreed  upon between the  sponsor  and members; and  which,  therefore, goes  against   the spirit  of a voluntary  scheme, by seeking  to impose  an amount  to be contributed  by the employer  when they  have no  authority  to impose.

45. Mr Kairaria further submitted that the  interested  party having  been a trustee and  having failed  to raise  the issue until  2 years after her retirement  and after  being  paid  50% of  retirement  benefits  is when she  raised the issue, it   was  mischievous  of her to seek  a benefit  which she   knew  that  benefit   was never  contemplated by the employer   and members of  the scheme.

46. Mr Kairaria urged the court to find that the respondent’s decision  was unfair  and   unreasonable  and  not in the  interest of  both the  sponsor  and  members  of the scheme  as the decision if implemented  will kill the  whole  scheme.

47. It was submitted that the decision of the respondents   was unreasonable, irrational, and unfair, in view of the foregoing.

48. Further,  that the applicant   was not accorded  a  fair hearing   in that the  2nd respondent  directed the  parties to  proceed by  way or written  submissions  only to turn around in  the judgment  and blame  the applicant  for  not calling  evidence  which then  meant that the applicant  was locked  out of  raising  the  substantive  issues  it intended to raise  at the hearing.

49. Reliance  was  placed on Ridge  Vs Baldwin [1994] A.C. 40  where it  was held that the body with  the power cannot  lawfully  proceed to make  a  decision until it  has afforded  to the person  affected  a proper  opportunity  to state  his case.  That in failing to afford the exparte applicant a fair hearing, this was an apparent sign of bias. Further reliance was placed onCOTU (K) VS Benjamin K Nzioka & 5 Others CA Nairobi 249/1993.

50. Counsel also submitted that lack of fair hearing was coupled with procedural impropriety contrary to Rule 10 of the Retirement Benefits Authority (Tribunal) Rules 2000 which envisages a fair hearing.

51. That failure to accord the applicant a fair hearing in arriving at the decision   was against the rules of natural justice.  Reliance was placed on Halsbury’s Laws of England (Administrative Law) 4th Edition, 201 Reissue Page 218 paragraph 95which defines natural justice.

52. It was submitted that the decision by the respondent was against the principle of proportionality and the spirit of voluntary contributions.  Reliance was placed on Republic vs Commissioner of Lands Exparte Lake Flowers Ltd Nairobi HC Miscellaneous Application 1235 of 1998.

53. The applicant’s counsel further submitted  that the  decision went against  the  legitimate  expectation of the applicant  that it  would be  granted  a right  to fair and   administrative  process. Reliance was placed on Keroche Industries Ltd vs. Kenya Revenue Authority & 5 Others Nairobi HC CMA No. 743 of 2006.

54. It was further submitted that the respondent  failed  to take into  account relevant  considerations  which  were relevant   submissions, evidence  and similar  factors  presented  by the applicant  and that the  decisions  were based  on irrelevant  considerations.  Reliance  was placed on Weinberger  vs Inglis  & Another  [1919] AC 606  at  608  as approved  in secretary  of ……..for Education v Tameside  Metropolitan  Borough  Council [1977] AC 101U and Roberts v Hophood & Others[1925] AC  578.

55. It was  submitted that in the present  case, the respondents failed to give regard  to the intention of the parties while  forming the trust, and also  the results  of their  orders  on the financial position  of the exparte applicant.

56. The exparte  applicant’s  counsel further  submitted  that there  was  an error  of law  on the face of the record in that  the respondents  failed to  take into  account the  exparte   applicants  grounds set out in its memorandum of appeal.  Reliance was placed on Republic v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal exparte Show [1952]1 KB 338.

57. On whether the orders sought are available to the exparte applicant, reliance  was placed on Halsbury’s  Laws of England   4th Edition Vol  1(1) paragraph 12 page 270; Kenya  National Examination  Council  v Republic  exparte  Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge CA  266/1996; Captain  Geoffrey  Kugoya  Murungu  v Attorney General  Miscellaneous Application  293/93; Jotham Mulati  Wealamondi  v The  Chair ECK Miscellaneous  Application 81/2002; Chartbook  Ltd V Persimmon  Homes  Ltd [2009] UKHL  38, 3  WLR 267; Thomas  Bates  & Son Ltd V Wyndhiams [Lingerie] Ltd [1981] 1WLR  505; A.Roberts & Company Ltd v Leicestershire  County Council  [1961] Ch D.; Andrews  & Others  V Andrews & another [2014]  EWHC  1725  Ch; Republic  v The  Commissioner  of Lands exparte  Lake Flowers Ltd ( supra); Regina v Dudshealth, exparte  Meredith [1950] 2 ALL ER  741, at  743  cited in  Republic Permanent  Secretary  of the President  Ministry  of Internal Security& Another exparte Nassir Mwandihi  Miscellaneous  JR 132/2010; Peter Okedi Kadamas & Another v Municipality  of  Kisumu  CA 109 of  1984;  and  Republic vs Attorney General & Another exparte Kipngeno arap Ngeny, Miscellaneous  Civil Application  406 of  2001.

58. The exparte applicant’s counsel concluded that fair and  expeditious  Administrative  Action  espoused  in Article  47(1) of the  Constitution  could not be  guaranteed  in this case  when the process  of arriving  at the decision  was  shrouded  in mystery, and without  a proper  hearing  as prescribed.  Counsel prayed for the orders as sought by his client.

59. The 1st respondent filed written submissions on 14th October 2015 setting   out three issues for determination;

a) Whether the respondent’s decision was lawful and proper;

b) Whether the applicant was afforded an opportunity to be heard   pursuant to the rules of natural justice;

c) Whether the applicant has proved its case to warrant the orders sought.

60. On the first  issue of  whether the  respondent’s  decision   was lawful and  proper, it   was submitted that   clauses 2:9 and  2:11  of the Trustee Deed  registered  on 30th November  2005   are clear  as to the  intentions  of the parties  and that the purported  amended  Trust Deed  and  Rules  were  never registered  with the 1st respondent as required by Regulation 16 of the Retirement  Benefits  (Occupational Retirement  Benefit Scheme  Regulations, 2000 which mandates such registration and  prohibits  reduction of accrued  rights.

61. Further, that the Trust Deed Clause 1:14 provides for the criteria to be followed in order to give effect to any amendments to the Trust and Rules.  It  was submitted that the draft   amendments  were never consented to by members seeking to reduce  contributions and that there was no authority for approval of amendments  by way of Trustees  Resolutions as required  under Clause 1: 16 (f) of the rules; that the resolution was not transmitted  to the Retirement Benefit Authority  for approval  as required by Clause 1: 13 (d) & (m)  of the Deed  and Rules  dated  30th November  2005.

62. It was submitted that the respondent was bound by the registered Trust Deed and to give effect to it, hence the decision of the respondents’ decisions were lawful.  Reliance was placed on Republic vs. Attorney General & Others exparte KAA Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme.

63. Further, it was contended that the respondents  could not  in the circumstances  of this case have arrived at  any other  decision  except  as  prescribed under Section 46 of the Retirement Benefits Authority Act  to protect  the  pensioners’ interests  in a pension scheme.

64. On the  second issue  of whether  the applicant   was afforded  a fair  opportunity  to be heard  pursuant  to the rules  of Natural justice, it  was submitted  that the  applicant  is misleading  this court  since it  filed written  submissions  and made  oral  arguments  during  the  hearing   of the appeal  in support of  the  grounds  of appeal  and that  the procedure for hearing  of appeals  as stipulated   in Rule  10  of the Tribunal Rules   2000 was adhered to.  That in any event, no minutes of proceedings of the Tribunal   were attached to enable the court determine the veracity of the allegations that the applicant was denied a chance to be heard.

65. On the third  issue of  whether the  applicant has  proved  his case to warrant the orders sought, it  was submitted that  Judicial Review  courts  are not appellate  courts as  affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd vs   Hyosung  Ebara  Company  Ltd  & 2 Othersciting  Chief Constable  V Evans [1982] 3  ALL  ER  141.

66. It was submitted that the authority had no discretion to depart from the scheme rules as registered in 2005 which rules bind all the parties.  Further reliance was placed on the case of  Community Advocacy  and  Awareness   Trust  & 8 Others v Attorney General [2012] e KLRciting Pharmaceutical  Manufacturers  of SA in Re President of SA 2000(2)  SA  674 (cc)  on threshold of rationality.  Further reliance  was  placed  on Pastoli V Kabale  District  Local  Government  Council & Others[2008] 2 EA  300 where the court  set out what  must  be proved to warrant  grant of Judicial Review. It was further submitted that  Rule  16 of the Regulations 2000 seeks  to cure  the  mischief  of ensuring  members  of the scheme  are consulted  before amendments  to the Trust Deed are effected, which amendments must be  registered with Retirement Benefits Authority Act in order to protect  interests  of members  and  sponsors  of the Retirement Benefit  Schemes.

67. The applicant’s counsel in a rejoinder submission maintained that there was no representation made by the sponsor or the applicant to the 1st interested party or other members that the members would be paid 10% of their benefits when they retire. That the 1st interested party cannot claim to have discovered the error in computation of he r benefits after her retirement since she was a Trustee and she attended meetings of the applicant. Mr Kairaria submitted that the Authority was bound to interpret the Trust Deed on what was legitimately due to the 1st interested party but that it failed to do so.

Determination

68. I have carefully considered the exparte applicant’s application for Judicial Review orders, dated  30th  March  2015  and filed in court on  1st April  2015, supported by  statutory statement, supporting  and further  affidavits  and  the elaborate  exhibits.  I have as well considered the 1st respondent’s replying affidavit, and exhibits.  I have also considered  the parties’  advocates  detailed  written  and  oral submissions  supported by statutory  and  case law.

69. In my humble view, the issues that flow from the case are:

1) Whether the respondent’s decision was lawful, rational and or arrived at with procedural propriety.

2) Whether the exparte applicant was accorded a fair hearing.

3) Whether the reliefs sought are available to the exparte applicant.

4) What orders should this court make?

5) Who should bear costs of the Judicial Review proceedings?

70. This court will commence with the second issue of whether the exparte applicant was accorded a fair hearing under the Rules of natural justice. According to the exparte applicant, it was denied a fair hearing because the 1st respondent allowed parties to file written submission but in the judgment, it attacked the applicant for failure to make oral submissions yet there was no requirement for oral submissions. Further, that the respondent failed to consider all the issues in the memorandum of appeal.

71. The 1st respondent thinks otherwise. I have carefully read the judgment of 8th August 2014 by the Retirement Benefits Tribunal. Albeit  proceedings  before the Tribunal  were never  annexed  to these Judicial Review proceedings, the Tribunal  exhaustively analyzed  the applicant’s  case, the  1st respondent’s case as presented, including all exhibits produced  and the issues  for determination framed  after carefully  considering the  pleadings, submissions and  authorities, filed  by both parties  to the dispute. The Tribunal equally carefully and anxiously considered  all the  documents  and the oral  submissions  ably made by advocates  for the appellants  and the respondent ( see page  395   of the exparte  applicant’s   bundle  ( last paragraph) and  page 392,  2nd  paragraph  thereof).  The 2nd  respondent  also framed  three clear issues  on page  396 (7)  of the  judgment  of 8th August  2014  as before delving into the details of the case in determining those issues:

1) Whether  the appellants  and the respondent were bound  by the Trust Deed and Rules dated 30th November 2005 when considering the calculation of benefits due to  members of the scheme;

2) Whether the appellants and(or the respondent  may  without  amendment  effect changes  to the Trust Deed  and Rules  dated  30th November  2005  when considering   calculation of benefits due to  the members  of the scheme.

3) Who should bear the costs of the appeal?

72. The Tribunal ventured into and explored the statutory  provisions of the Act  and Regulations  made there under  and  the Trust Deed  and arrived  at the decision  that the appellant’s  apparent departure from the clear statutory obligations constituted  breach of statutory provisions which could not reasonably  be explained  away in the  casual manner  by laying  blame  on  Mrs Mokaya, and  lauding  it as  innocent the conduct  of their advocate ( see page  401  of the applicants  bundle).

73. In my humble view, the exparte applicant has failed to demonstrate  to this court that  the rules of  natural justice  were  breached  by the  2nd respondent  whose decision  is  under challenge  before this court.  I find that  there is no demonstration of denial  of fair hearing; bias  or breach  of rules  of natural justice  as alleged by  the exparte  applicant.

74. I further find that  the  2nd respondent’s  decision  covered all the issues  raised  in the grounds of appeal and  in  arriving at  the  decision that it did,  the  2nd respondent  explored all the facts of the case  that had been before the 1st respondent, the memorandum of appeal, the provisions of the Trust Deed and  the statutory  requirements  on obligations  placed on the  1st  respondent.

75. I am therefore unable to find that the exparte  applicant was denied a fair hearing by the 2nd  respondent  as it   was given  an opportunity to present  its arguments   both in writing  and orally which it did through its counsel  and  a decision  arrived at  upon  examination of all  the material  placed before  the Tribunal, backed by  statutory  provisions.

76. On the first issue  of  whether the decision of the  2nd respondent   was lawful, the applicant  claimed that the decision affected all other members  of the scheme  who were not  complainants  or parties  to the dispute  hence the decision  failed to take  into account  the fact  that implementation  thereof  would ground  the operations of the applicant  to bankruptcy  contrary  to the statutory duty of the  1st respondent  under  Section  5  of Retirement  Benefits Authority  Act to protect  the interests  of both sponsor  and  members  of the scheme.

77. With utmost respect to the exparte applicant, the issue of whether  or not  the  1st respondent  was entitled  to find that  there should be recalculation of the benefits of all other  members and on whether implementation of such decision  would  have a devastating  financial  effect on  the scheme  is an  issue of fact  and merit  issue, not a procedural legal issue.  I say so because  calculation  of retirement benefits  and  whatever   detrimental effect  that recalculation would  have on  the exparte  applicant is a matter for an  actuarist and  not  for the parties  or even  a court of law.

78. There was no actuarial report demonstrating what great risk and or devastating financial effect that the recalculation would have on the exparte applicant.  Furthermore,  no provision  of the law  was  cited to show  that the 1st respondent having  found that  the  applicant  had breached  the law by paying into the fund  an amount  less than  what the  Trust  Deed  instrument  provided, the 1st respondent had no statutory mandate to direct the applicant to correct that position.  Furthermore, a pension  scheme does not involve one beneficiary but several  beneficiaries who  rely on the consistent  and  certain  application   of the  Scheme Trust Deed and Rules  to ensure  that  benefits  are  evenly  and  fairly distributed. The role of the 1st respondent is to regulate the schemes and ensure they comply with the law as stipulated under the RBA Act.

79. Judicial review looks at the process and not the merits of the decision. From the applicant’s submissions, clearly, it seeks to convert this court into an appellate court to reexamine and reevaluate the evidence tendered before the respondents and arrive at its own independent decision. That is not permissible and the authorities on this aspect are too many to be cited here. The scope of Judicial Review  was also considered  in R v Vice Chancellor  JKUAT Exparte Cecilia  Mwathi & Another in which the  following  excerpt  from Supreme Court practice 1997 VOL 53/1-416was quoted:

“  The remedy of  Judicial Review  is concerned  with reviewing  not the merits of  the decision in respect of which  the application  for Judicial Review  is made, but the decision  making process  itself.  It is  important  to remember  in every  case that the purpose of the remedy  of Judicial Review is  to ensure  that the individual  is given  fair treatment  by the authority  to which  he has been  subjected  and that  is no part of that purpose  to substitute  the opinion  of the judiciary  or of individual  judges  for that  of authority  constituted  by law to decide  the matters  in question.”

80. In Municipal Council of Mombasa v Republic & Umoja  Consultants  Ltd (2002) e KLR  it   was stated  that:

“In Judicial  Review, the court would only be  concerned with the  process  leading  to the  making of the decision.  How was the decision arrived at?  Did those who made the decision have the power, i.e the jurisdiction to make it?  Were the persons affected by the decision heard before it was made?  In making the decision, did the decision maker take into account relevant matters or did he  take into account irrelevant  matters?  These  are the kind of  questions  a court hearing  a matter  by way of Judicial Review  is concerned  with, and such court   is not entitled to  act  as a Court of Appeal over the  decider; acting as  an  Appeal Court  over the decider  would involve  going into the merits  of the decision  itself-such  as whether  there  was  or there  was not sufficient evidence  to support  the decision and that , as we  have said, is not the  province  of Judicial Review.”

81. Examining the Trust Deed  as  registered  with the  1st respondent  on was  30th November  2005, it is clear that  under clause 2:8, every  member shall  subject  to the provisions of Rules  2: 9  and 2: 10 make as  from the date  of  becoming a member  a minimum basic contribution at the  rate of 10% of his basicsalary; The founder shall contribute towards the scheme a minimum of  10% of the member’s basic salary.

82. The Trust Deed once registered with Retirement Benefits Authority becomes a statutory instrument and therefore a legal contract binding the founder and its members and therefore any other contrary intention can only be recognized if there is an appropriate amendment to the instrument in the manner set out in the same instrument or statute.

83. In this case, the applicant alleges that the draft amendments to the trust made in 2006 reflected the correct intentions of the parties which were to the effect that the interested party was only entitled to a maximum of shs 3750.

84. Regrettably, the purported  amended  Trust Deed  and  or Rules  dated  14th September  2005  and  16th November  2005 are neither signed nor registered with the Retirement Benefits Authority as required by law.  Secondly, there are no resolutions  showing  that the  trustees  resolved  to  amend  the Trust Deed  and Rules  and if  they did so, this court  is left  wondering  why between  2005  and  today, there has been no registration of the purported  amendments to give effect to the parties’ intentions, in the absence of any  court order injuncting the applicant  from effecting  the intended amendments to the Trust Deed.

85. Regulation 16 of the Retirement Benefits (occupational) Retirement Benefit Schemes) Regulations 2000 provides that:

16(1) A Scheme may amend its rules as specified in the Rules but no such amendments shall be valid:-

If it  purports to  invalidate  or reduce   accrued  rights  and  interests  of the sponsors  and  members of  the scheme;

If it purports   to effect any right of a creditor of the scheme, other than a member   thereof;

1. Unless it has been approved by the Authority and registered as provided for in paragraph (3).

2. Within thirty  days  from the date  of the passing  of a resolution for the amendment of the scheme  rules  a  copy of such  amendment  shall be  transmitted by  the trustees to the  Authority  for registration.

86. Contrary  to the above  provisions of the Regulations  made under the  Retirement  Benefits  Authority Act, there is no resolution  for the amendment  to the scheme  Rules shown  to exist   and  neither were  there any evidence of transmission of such  purported  amendments  by the trustees  to the Retirement Benefits  Authority  for  registration.

87. Further, there is no  evidence that  the  applicant, in seeking  to give  effect to the intention of the parties  ever forwarded any amendments  to the Retirement Benefit Authority  for approval  before  eventual registration.

88. In addition, the glaring evidence on record shows that the  applicant’s  ‘intention’ to amend  the  Regulations would reduce  the accrued  rights  and  interests of members  since the  primary  instrument   was clear that  the sponsor’s  contribution  would be  10% of the members basic  salary  and therefore  by capping   the  maximum contribution  to 3750  irrespective  of what  a member  earned as  basic salary, that  would be  tending  to invalidate  or reduce  the accrued  rights  and  interests  of the members in favour  of the sponsor, contrary to Regulation 16(1) (a) of the Retirement  Benefits Authority  Regulations.

89. Further, Clause  1: 14  of the registered  Trust Deed  is clear that   Trustees may  only amend  by deed the provisions  of the Trust Deed   from time to time with the consent of the founder, the  Authority ( RBA)  and the Commissioner.

90. Furthermore, it is suspect  that the applicant   would have  a duly executed Trust Deed  and  Rules (under seal)  dated  30th  November  2005  registered  with Retirement Benefits Authority (1st respondent) with a commencement  date of  1st January  2006  containing  Rule 2:8 on members contributions and Rule 2: on the founders contribution all stipulating that the minimum basic contribution would be at the rate   of 10% of the member’s  basic salary, yet , with  hindsight, have a separate  unsigned, unsealed Trust Deed  and  Rules ( NOT proposed  amendments), dated 14th September 2005 and 16th September 2005  contemplating the founder’s contributions pegged on a  maximum  figure  of  3750!!

91. In my humble  view, as the  Trust Deed  and Rules  as registered are clearly  dated  30th October  2005, it  would be expected that if  there  was any  intention to amend  the two  instruments, then the  amendments would follow the  procedures  as stipulated  in  the instruments and Regulations under the Retirement Benefits  Authority  Act  and such amendments if any would  have come  much later   and  not before the instruments were registered.

92. This court notes that the minutes of 25th January  2005  at Jumuia Place, Nairobi had minute 12/TRUST/2005 under matters  arising, touching  on amended Trust  Deed  and Rules  but nothing   was discussed concerning  the contribution by the  members  or the founder. Therefore, albeit  the  applicant  wants  this court to  believe that the Registered Trust and  Rules had   errors  and that the draft   Deed and  Rules is the one  which was correct, and indicative of the  parties’ intentions, this court  is  unable  to accept  that explanation for, there  is no impediment  that stood  in the way of the applicant  inserting that clause  on minimum  of sh 3750  into the  registered  instrument  and  neither  is there any  evidence  of any attempt  to cause  the amendments  to the instrument  to date, yet, as at  9th December   2008, the  there   was  a Deed  registered  for removal  of Trustees  and appointment  of new Trustees. There is therefore absolutely no indication that the applicant intended to amend the clause on minimum contributions.

93. Even assuming  that the alleged ‘error’to the  Trust Deed  and  Rules  dated  30th October  2005  was inadvertent, as  per the minutes  of  7th August  2009  which were attended by  the interested party, at  minute 18/2008  on “Deed  Amendment  of Trust  Deed  and  Rules Document” the court observes that what  was discussed  there under  was  “ the  Deed amendments  and  removal of Trustees”  which had been finalized as discussed and  submitted to  Kenya Revenue Authority  for embossment before being launched  with the Retirement Benefits Authority.

94. However, at  minute  5/2009  of the Administrator’s  presentation, it  was  reported  that “the  scheme investment  was done  as required  and  on the report on the  budget  for  2009/2010  highlights affecting  the scheme, it  was reported  under (e)  staff contributions, that there  was  an anomaly  between the  existing  practice  as in the Staff Regulations  and the  Trust Deed  and  policy document  on staff  contributions  and that it was  agreed that the Trust Deed and  Rules  document be  harmonized  to be in line with the terms  of employment   policy  as this   was the basis  for the Trust Deed  and  Rules document.”

95. Nevertheless, even after that minute,5/2009   no attempt was made to amend  the Trust Deed  and  Rules as required  under the Trust Deed  and  Rules  and  the Regulations  made under  the Act.

96. The applicant’s  exhibit  at page  235   of its bundle  annexes the  Members Information  Hard book  dated October  2009 after the meeting of  7th August  2009  prepared  by the Human Resources and Administration  Department. Clause 4:0 is on contributions. Clause 4:1 (b) purports  to inform  the members that  the employer   contributes  10%  of the basic salary  subject to a maximum  of shs  3750 on the member’s  behalf  while the   members  contribute 10%  of the member’s  basic salary  or more  on a voluntary basis.

97.  My humble  opinion  is that the  members  information  Hard book made on  October  2009  prepared  by Human Resources and Administration  Department did not   and could not  amend  the Trust Deed  and  Rules which had  been registered  in 2005   and to which  no amendments  had been made in the manner stipulated by the Trust Deed instrument itself and the Act and Regulations made thereunder.

98. The applicant’s counsel submitted that the parties’ intentions override the law.  However, with the law (Regulation) under the Act  clearly  stipulating  the procedure  by which  amendments   to the Trust Deed  and Rules  would be  amended, and in the  absence  of any  resolution of amendments to the Trust Deed   instrument by the Trustees or approval by members. Therefore, the applicant  cannot  be heard  to seek  to operate  outside  the  statutory  provisions at  its own  convenience for, there is  no consent  from the members for alteration to the clause  on the founder’s  contributions  from 10% of  basic  salary  to “subject  to a maximum  of shs  3750. ”

99.  In other words, I find  that the applicant  is attempting  to go round  the statute or seeking  waiver  of  enforcement  of  a  statutory   instrument   without  the consent  of the members, as  required  under the Regulations  under the Retirement  Benefits Authority  Act which prohibit  variation  to the instrument  except  by amendment as provided for in the instrument and the Regulations.

100. Furthermore, this court finds that the question of whether or not  The  2nd  respondent  Tribunal  should  have relied  on the  “intended  trust Deed”or the registered Trust Deed  which is  said to  have errors  which errors  have subsisted  to date  without any amendments are matters which would  appropriately  be investigated  into by the court  exercising  appellate  jurisdiction as stipulated  in Section  78  of the Civil  Procedure Act Cap  21 Laws of Kenya  and not to be  challenged  by way of Judicial Review  proceedings.

101. The same applies to determinations of whether or not the interested party should be permitted to benefit from contributions that were not made (in violation) of the Trust Deed Instrument), since no investments were allegedly made on her behalf.

102. In other words, there are a myriad of questions  such as  whether the  applicant  bears  any liability  for  wrongfully  deducting  the sums lesser than the contributions  mandated by the Trust Deed and Rules, which question cannot be determined conclusively by this court;  and whether  a trustee such   as the  interested party herein who was  involved  in policy  making  and  execution of decisions of the  applicant  and who  knew  or  ought  to have known first hand  as to what  was being  deducted as she  was an insider,  had any legitimate  expectation to reap  more than  what she  invested into scheme.

103. I would, however, hesitate to find that the applicant had any legitimate expectation that it would be allowed to waive  statutory  provisions  in favour  of the intentions  of the  parties  which intentions  were  never reduced  into a Deed  amending the Trust Instrument and Rules with the consent of the members, and only with the approval of the Retirement Benefits Authority.  It is important to note that Judicial Review  involves  an assessment  of the manner  in which  the decision  is made, it is  not an appeal  and the jurisdiction is exercised  in a supervisory manner as stipulated  in Article  165(6) of the  Constitution to ensure  that   authority  of power  is exercised  in accordance with the  basic  principles  of legality, fairness, rationality and  procedural  propriety ( see  Pastoli V Kabale District  Local Government  Council and  Others(supra)  in which the court cited with approval Council of Civil Unions  Vs Minister  for the Civil Service [1985] AC 2and  in  Re an application by  Bukoba Gymkhana  Club  [1963] EA  473  at  479that:

“ In order  to succeed  in an application for Judicial Review, the  applicant  has to show that the decision  or act complained  of is  tainted  with illegality, irrationality  and  procedural impropriety ……..illegality  is when the  decision making authority  commits  an error of law  in the process of taking  or making the act,  the subject  of the complaint.  Acting  without jurisdiction or ultra vires, or  contrary to the provisions of a law  or its principles are instances of illegality, where a Chief Administrative  Officer of  a District interdicts  a public  servant  on the direction of the District  Executive  Committee, when the powers to do so are vested by law in the District Service  Commission…Irrationality is when there is such gross unreasonableness in the decision taken or act done that no   reasonable authority  addressing itself  to the facts  and  the law  before it, would have  made such a decision, such a decision is usually  in defiance  of logic and  acceptable  moral standards ….procedural impropriety  is when there is  a failure  to act fairly  on the part  of the  decision making  authority   in the process  if taking the decision .

The unfairness may be in non-observance of the Rules of Natural Justice or to act with procedural fairness towards one to be affected by the decision.  It may also involve failure to adhere and observe procedural rules expressly laid down in a statute or legislature instrument by which such authority exercises jurisdiction to make decision. “see alsoMunicipal Council of Mombasa  V Republic  and Umoja  Consultants  Ltd CA  185/2001(supra).

104. On the part of the Retirement Benefits Authority (Tribunal) in arriving at the decision that it did framed the following three issues of determination:

1. Whether  the appellants  and  respondent were  bound by the Trust Deed and  Rules dated  30th November 2005 when considering  the  calculation of benefits due to members of  the scheme;

2. Whether the appellants  or the respondent  may, without  amendment  effect changes  to the Trust Deed  and Rules   dated  30th  November  2005  when considering  calculating  benefits  due to  members  of the scheme.

3. Who should bear the costs of the appeal.

105. It is worth  noting that  Section  46(1)  of the Retirement  Benefits  Authority  mandates  the Chief Executive Officer  of the scheme  to ensure that in making  a  decision, such decision  is made in accordance  with the provisions of the relevant  scheme  Rules of Retirement  Benefit  Authority  under which  the scheme  is  established.  On the  other hand, the Retirement  Benefits  Authority  Act  mandates  the Retirement  Benefit  Authority   to regulate   and  supervise  the  establishment  and  management  of Retirement  Benefits Scheme.

106. It follows  that the  1st respondent  is expected  to regulate  and  supervise  the establishment  and  management  of Retirement  Benefits Schemes  by registering  the Trust Deed   Instruments  and  Rules.  The   tribunal after reviewing the evidence   and the law, in its exercise of appellate jurisdiction, found that   the 1st respondent acted properly and within the law.  It found that  except  for the rates   of contribution at10%  of basis salary  expressed  in Rules 2:8 and  2:11 of the Rules of the applicant scheme, the Trust Deed  and  Rules  dated  30th  November  2005   was  the correct  document  to be used   in administration, regulation, supervision and management  of the applicant scheme  and that Clause  1:2   of the Trust Deed   was clear   that the scheme was established under irrevocable  trusts  as declared  by the sponsor; and that the  obligations  of the scheme to  its members  flow from  the registered  Trust Deed  and Rules  as read with  the  applicable law.

107. In arriving  at the above decision the  2nd respondent  analyzed  the various relevant provisions of Retirement  Benefits  Authority  Act and Rules  made  there under and the clauses  in the applicant  Schemes Trust  Deed  and Rules. More importantly, Section 40 of the Retirement Benefits Act Mandates the exparte applicant to:

a) Ensure  that the scheme  fund  is at all  times  managed  in accordance  with the Retirement  Benefits  Authority  Act, any regulations made there under, the Scheme Rules  and  any directions   given by  the Chief Executive Officer;

b) Take  reasonable  care to  ensure  that the management  of the scheme is carried out  in the best interests of the members  and sponsors of the scheme;

c) Report to the Chief Executive Officer as soon as  reasonably  practical, any  unusual  occurrence  which in their  view could  jeopardize  the rights of the members  or sponsors  of the scheme; and

d) Report to the Chief Executive Officer, as soon as reasonably practical, if any   contributions into the scheme fund remain due for a period of more than 30 days.

108. The court notes that the Tribunal found both the applicant   herein and the 1st respondent in error.  On the part of the   appellant, it was found to have failed to ensure that contributions are made in accordance with the Rules of the Scheme.  On the part of the 1st respondent, it was found to have failed to ensure full compliance   with the Trust Deed and Rules of the Scheme.

109. The Tribunal  also made  serious  factual  findings  on the evidence available  including  lack of evidence to show approval of amendment to the Trust Deed and Rules   dated 9th November  2011 which provides at Rule 11(a) that the sponsor to contribute  a minimum  of  10%  of a member’s  basis salary  subject  to a maximum  of kshs  4875. 00.

110. This court also notes that vide a Revised Trust Deed of 9th November 2011 that Revised Deed was neither sealed nor registered with the 1st respondent as required by law.  The exparte  applicant  was  bound to  comply with the  Trust Deed  and  Rules  and  the Retirement Benefits Authority  Act and the Rules  made there under. And if  there  was any error  in the Deed and  Rules the applicants were obliged   to cause   amendments  using the  procedure  stipulated  in the Deed  and  Rules and  the Retirement Benefits  Authority Regulations.

111. Any directive  or order  to the applicant  requiring  it to make  payments of the retirement benefit otherwise than  in accordance with the  Trust Deed  and Rules  as  registered  would be  irrational and unreasonable and illegal.

112. Although the applicant  cited several  authorities to show that the respondents  should have  considered that intentions  of a contract  overrides the statutory  provisions, and that  a party is  in principle  entitled  to rectification of a contract upon proof that he believed  a particular  term to be   included  in the contract, and that  the other party  concluded  the contract with  the omission  or a variation  of that term, in the  knowledge  that the first  party believed  the term  to be included, which  principle as set out  in  Thomas  Bates  & son Ltd (supra)  case adopted  from Snell  on Equity  25th Edition  1960  page  569  that:

“ By  what appears  to be  a species  of  equitable   estoppels, if one party to a transaction knows that the instrument   contains   a mistake  in his favour  but does nothing  to correct it, he  and those  claiming under him will be  precluded  from resisting  rectification  in the group  that the mistake  is unilateral  and not common,” this court observes that the interested party or respondents have not resisted any amendments to the Deed and Rules. Simply  put, there is  no such  proposed  amendment  placed  before  the 1st respondent  for approval  and  registration.  There is s only street talk.

113. Furthermore, if the Deed   was  a contract   between  the parties  with clauses  requiring  rectification, there is  nothing   to show that  the  applicant sought  for rectification  of the erroneous  clauses.

114. This court would therefore be usurping  the powers  of the  1st  respondent and of the  sponsor  and trustees   if it attempted to purport to amend the  Trust Deed  Instrument  through Judicial Review  proceedings, by purporting  to substitute  the respondents’ decisions  with its own.

115. In my humble view every reasonable authority would only act within the confines of the law and not act ultra vires   or without jurisdiction. I do not find any jurisdiction which the respondents declined to exercise, in accordance with statute, the Retirement Benefits Authority. Moreso, even  the Deed  and Rules  do  not confer  any jurisdiction  on the respondents  to amend the  Deed and Rules but to  approve  the amendments   and  register  them for as long  as  the amendments  are done in  accordance  with the Deed Instrument  and  Regulations  made under  the Act.

116. Furthermore, rectification of Clause  2:11  would only  be done through  amendment  as  stipulated  in the Deed and  Rules and  Regulations  made under the Act.  This court cannot direct the  1st respondent to  rectify an instrument  that does  not belong to it.  The Deed  belongs to the applicant  and  its members  who have  the power to amend  and  this court  cannot usurp  that  power and if did so, it would  be abusing  its powers.

117. In the end, I am unable to find that the respondents acted outside the law in arriving at the decision that they did. I find that they acted within the law in arriving at the decision that they did. Certiorari would therefore not issue and neither mandamus as the court cannot compel a rewriting of a contract between the parties.

118. The prayer for  prohibition cannot issue  as the 1st respondents requiring  that the applicant conducts reconciliation  for all affected  members is a statutory  role  to ensure   the applicant  acts  within the Deed  and  Law stipulated  particularly  where the  applicant  has not  amended  the Deed dated 30th November  2005.  Furthermore, the purported  amendments  reflecting   intentions  of parties  as per  the 2011 draft  instrument  which has never  been registered  gives different  figures   from those  contained  in the drafts of  14th September and   16th September  2005. Therefore the court would not even know which is the actual maximum capping contributions by members.

119. Iam equally unable to find that the applicant has made out a case for the grant of the Judicial Review orders of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition sought in the Notice of Motion.

120. The upshot of all the above is that this court finds the exparte applicant’s application dated 30th March 2015 not merited   and the same is hereby dismissed.

121. I order that each party bear their own costs of the Judicial Review proceedings, in view of the existing relationship between and among the parties to these proceedings.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 24th day of January 2017.

R. E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr Kimathi h/b for Kairaria for the exparte applicant

Mr Ochieng for the Respondents

CA: George