Supreme Court dismisses StanChart bid to stop Sh7bn pension award

The Supreme Court has dismissed an attempt by Standard Chartered Bank and its pension fund to block the enforcement of a tribunal decision directing them to pay Sh7 billion to 629 former employees, removing one of the hurdles that had delayed the settlement of the pension dispute.

Even with the ruling, the pensioners will not access their money yet, since the High Court in Nairobi had already stopped the payment two months ago after the bank filed a fresh case, which is set for mention next week.

A five-judge bench led by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu on Friday rejected the application for stay of execution, ruling that the court had no jurisdiction to grant the request.

The judges said the petition did not meet the threshold of constitutional interpretation.

"The mere allegation of constitutional violations cannot bring the appeal within the ambit of this court's jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a). On the basis of the foregoing, it is clear to us that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the intended appeal and the application for stay attendant thereto," the bench stated.

The panel included Justices Ibrahim Mohamed, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung'u and Isaac Lenaola.

They noted that public interest weighed in favour of the pensioners, who argued that further delays were unfair given that some retired as far back as the 1990s.

The bank and its trustees had sought to suspend enforcement of the Retirement Benefits Appeal Tribunal judgment delivered in April 2022, which awarded the benefits to the former workers.

Their move to the Supreme Court followed a Court of Appeal decision in March that upheld both the High Court’s 2023 ruling and the tribunal’s earlier directive.

In their argument, the petitioners told the court they risked irreparable financial exposure if the payments went through before the appeal was heard, adding that the pensioners had no known assets that could be attached in case the money had to be recovered later.

They also asked the court to freeze further proceedings before the tribunal.

However, the judges agreed with a preliminary objection raised by the former employees, who argued that the Court of Appeal decision had nothing to do with constitutional interpretation or application, making the case inadmissible at the Supreme Court.