https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/13093

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION** **PETITION NO. E385 OF 2025** **BETWEEN** **STANDARD CHARTERED BANK KENYA LIMITED ………………..…1ST PETITIONER** **DAVID GICO KAMAU** **WALTER MUNGAI** **AZIKIRAM MUDIKA LUBIA** **BARTESH SHAH** **(*As The Trustees of* STANDARD CHARTERED KENYA PENSION FUND).2ND PETITIONERS** **DAVID GICO KAMAU** **WALTER MUNGAI** **BEATRICE MAINGI** **JANE CHEGE** **NICHOLAS OTADO** **JULIUS MWANGI** **(AS THE Trustees of STANDARD CHARTERED KENYA STAFF** **BENEFITS SCHEME 2006(THE 2ND SCHEME)…………….………..3RD PETITIONERS** **AND** **THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS APPEAL TRIBUNAL ......................1ST RESPONDENT** **RETIREMENT BENEFITS AUTHORITY .......................................2ND RESPONDENT** **THE ATTORNEY GENERAL .....................................................3RD RESPONDENT** **AND** **ABDALLA OSMAN & 628 OTHERS ......................................INTERESTED PARTIES** **JUDGMENT** **Introduction** 1. The Petition before the Court is dated 24th June 2025. It is brought under Articles 2, 10, 22, 23, 27, 40(2), 47, 48, 50(1), 165, 169 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. It arises from a decree dated 18th June 2025, issued by the 1st Respondent in Appeal No. 8 of 2021 (Abdalla Osman & 628 Others v Retirement Benefits Authority & 5 Others). That decree, in addition to the substantive decretal sum for pension underpayments and surplus refund, awarded party-and-party costs in the sum of Kes 709,190,000/-, computed in accordance with the Schedule of Costs set out in the Retirement Benefits (Tribunal) Rules, 2000, published as Legal Notice No. 121 of 2000. 2. The 2nd Respondent and the Interested Parties filed responses to the Petition. The 1st and 3rd Respondents were served with the pleadings but did not file any response. 3. The matter proceeded to disposal on the basis of affidavit evidence and written submissions. The Petitioner filed submissions dated 24th September 2025; the 2nd Respondent’s submissions are dated 30th October 2025; and the interested parties' written submissions are dated 31st October 2025. **The Petitioners' Case** 4. The Petition is supported by the affidavit of Dr Davidson Mwaisaka, sworn on the same date as the Petition. The Petitioners' case, distilled to its essentials, is as follows: (a) ***By Legal Notice No. 121 of 2000, dated 11th September 2000 and published in the Kenya Gazette, Vol. CII–No. 64 of 13th October 2000, the Retirement Benefits (Tribunal) Rules, 2000 were promulgated. Although the preamble to the Notice recites that it is made “in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 52 of the Retirement Benefits Act, the Chief Justice makes the following Rules,” the Notice, on its face, is signed by Mr Chrisanthus B. Okemo, the then Minister for Finance, and not by the Chief Justice;*** ***(b) Section 52 of the Retirement Benefits Act (Cap. 197) vests the power of making rules governing appeals, fees payable, the scale of costs, procedure, and the manner of notifying parties exclusively in the Chief Justice. According to the Petitioner, this power is non-delegable, and its exercise by the Minister for Finance was accordingly ultra vires, offending the maxim delegata potestas non potest delegari, and rendering the Rules, including the Schedule of Costs applied in this case, null, void, and of no legal effect under Article 2(4) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010;*** ***(c) The scale of costs set out in the Schedule to the Rules is inconsistent with Section 49(4) of the Act, which the Petitioners read as tying the Tribunal's costs jurisdiction to “any scale prescribed for suits in the High Court”, i.e., the Advocates Remuneration Order (“the ARO”). As subsidiary legislation, the Rules cannot lawfully depart from or exceed what the parent Act permits, by operation of Section 31(b) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act (Cap. 2);*** ***(d) On 13th June 2025 the Interested Parties submitted a draft decree incorporating costs of Kes 709,190,000/- said to be computed under Rule 13 of the Schedule. Despite the Petitioners raising concerns and seeking to be heard on the costs component, the Tribunal proceeded to sign and issue the decree on 18th June 2025 without affording them a hearing on quantum, in breach of Articles 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; and*** ***(e) The resulting costs award, said to represent an effective rate approaching 100% of the underlying claim, far in excess of the graduated 1%–2% scale under the ARO, is capricious, extortionate, and operates as a practical barrier to the Petitioners' access to justice under Article 48.*** 5. Accordingly, the Petitioners seek the following orders: *(a) A declaration that the Rules and Legal Notice No. 121 of 2000 are null and void for having been made in contravention of Section 52 of the Retirement Benefits Act;* *(b) A declaration that the award of costs of Kes 709,190,000/- in Appeal No. 8 of 2021 (Abdalla Osman and 628 Others Versus Retirement Benefits Authority and 5 Others), made without compliance with the law and without hearing the Petitioners, is a breach of the fundamental rights to a fair administrative process under Article 47 and to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution;* *(c) A declaration that the decree dated 18th June 2025, awarding costs of Kes 709,190,000/- in Appeal No. 8 of 2021 (Abdalla Osman and 628 Others Versus Retirement Benefits Authority and 5 Others), is a denial of the Petitioners' right of access to justice under Article 48 and a violation of their constitutional right;* *(d) The Tribunal's decree dated 18th June 2025 is a nullity and be set aside and* *(e) Costs of the Petition.* **The Responses of the Respondents and the Interested Party** 6. The 1st and 3rd Respondents did not file a response to the Petition. The 2nd Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit, sworn by Antony Kiarahu, its Legal Services Director, which adopts a largely procedural stance. It generally denies the allegations, asserts that it was merely a statutory party to the appeal below, with no role in the assessment or issuance of the impugned decree, and urges that no cause of action is disclosed against it. On the substantive question, it maintains that the Rules were validly made by the Chief Justice, relying on the presumption of regularity, and contends that the Petitioners, having submitted to the Tribunal's jurisdiction throughout, including on appeal to the Court of Appeal, are guilty of approbation and reprobation by now impugning the very framework under which they litigated for over a decade. 7. The 629 interested parties were represented by Grace Njeri Ndirango, the 226th Interested Party, who deposed to a Replying Affidavit dated 23rd July 2025 on their behalf. Their account sets out the full procedural history: the Tribunal's judgment of 28th April 2022; the Petitioners' unsuccessful judicial review application (Nairobi JR Misc. Application No. E110 of 2022); their unsuccessful first appeal (Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 847 of 2023); and their Supreme Court Petition No. E011 of 2025, in which no conservatory orders were granted and which was ultimately struck out. Only after the Supreme Court declined to intervene did the Tribunal make its final order on 22nd May 2025 and, following an exchange of correspondence on the draft decree in which the Petitioners raised concerns only about the interest rate, not the quantum of costs, issue the decree of 18th June 2025. 8. The Interested Parties maintain that, on its face, Legal Notice No. 121 of 2000 was issued by the Chief Justice; that the Petitioners never challenged its validity in any of the litigation forums in which the parties were engaged until they lost; and that Sections 49(4), 51 and 52 of the Act, read together, entitle the Tribunal to apply its own Schedule of Costs, with a certificate under Section 51 issuable only on application by the party awarded costs. 9. The Petition was canvassed entirely on the basis of the Petition, the Replying Affidavits, and the written submissions, with each party highlighting its respective submissions through its counsel. **Submissions of the Parties** 10. The 1st and 3rd Respondents did not file submissions in response to the Petition. The Petitioners filed their written submissions dated 24th September 2025, and their rejoinder submissions dated 13th November 2025 in response to the Interested Parties' submissions. The 2nd Respondent filed its written submissions dated 30th October 2025, and the Interested Parties filed their written submissions dated 31st October 2025. **Petitioners' Submissions** 11. The Petitioners' submissions framed three issues for determination: (a) whether the Minister for Finance had power under Section 52 to make the Rules; (b) whether the scale of costs so made could lawfully depart from Section 49(4); and (c) whether the Tribunal's issuance of the decree without a hearing violated the Petitioners' constitutional rights. Reliance was placed on various decisions cited in its submissions in support of each of the issues highlighted hereinabove. **2nd Respondent's Submissions** 12. In its submissions, the 2nd Respondent framed the Petition as tainted by material misrepresentation. Its central textual argument was that Section 52, unlike statutory formulations elsewhere that require the delegate to act “by notice in the Gazette,” does not require the Chief Justice to personally gazette the Rules. 13. It invoked the presumption of regularity *omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta*, citing **Patrick Ayisi Ingoi v Republic [2018] KECA 43 (KLR)** and **Okoiti v Cabinet Secretary for Treasury & 2 others [2023] KEHC 2707 (KLR)**, and the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence, while directing the court's attention to the decisions in **748 Air Services Limited v Theuri Munyi [2017] KECA 419 (KLR)**; **Serah Njeri Mwobi v John Kimani Njoroge [2013] KECA 501 (KLR)** and **Yusuf Mohammed Jiwa t/a Jiwa Properties & another v Mwangi & 2 others [2024] KECA 38 (KLR)**, arguing that the Petitioners cannot resile from a framework under which they fully participated for over a decade. 14. It further raised the doctrine of constitutional avoidance as outlined in **Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] KESC 53 (KLR)**, the non-joinder of the Chief Justice and the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury as necessary parties, and alleged that the Petition was a collateral attack on a final decree, while referring to the decisions in **Virnekas Mwanaharusi Nihazi v Boniface Kahindi Katana & 2 others [2019] KEELC 931 (KLR)** and **Geoffrey Kipkoech v Insurance Regulatory Authority & 2 others [2021] KEHC 4419 (KLR)**. **Interested Parties' Submissions** 15. The Interested Parties' submissions covered similar ground with a more measured tone, resting substantially on the plain wording of the preamble to Legal Notice No. 121 of 2000 and the 25-year unchallenged operation of the Rules. They invoked the decision in **Okoiti v Cabinet Secretary for Treasury & 2 Others [2023] KEHC 2707 KLR**, and the approbation-and-reprobation doctrine. 16. They emphasized that Section 51 of the Act makes the issuance of a certificate of costs conditional on an application by the party awarded costs, and that Order 21 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2022 permits costs already certified or taxed to be reflected directly in a decree. Accordingly, the Tribunal had no independent obligation to convene a further hearing before finalizing the decree. **Petitioners' Rejoinder** 17. The Petitioners filed submissions in response to the interested Party’s submissions. The Petitioners maintained that a challenge to jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of proceedings and cannot be defeated by acquiescence. They relied on [**Adero Adero & another v Ulinzi Sacco Society Ltd [2002] KEHC 1174 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2002/1174/eng%402002-12-17)**.** They submitted that the Legal Notice was in fact signed and dated by the Minister, that Section 52 of the Act does not contemplate any role for the Minister, and that delegated authority is, absent express provision, non-delegable further, citing [**Republic v University of Nairobi & 2 others; Ex-parte: Mwangi Emma Wahito & another [2020] KEHC 3353 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2020/3353/eng%402020-07-31)**.** **Analysis and Determination** 18. Having considered the pleadings, the affidavit evidence, and the rival submissions, the following issues arise for determination by the Court: ***(i) Whether this Petition properly invokes the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, or whether it ought to be declined on grounds of constitutional avoidance;*** ***(ii) Whether the Retirement Benefits (Tribunal) Rules, 2000 (Legal Notice No. 121 of 2000) were made in violation of Section 52 of the Retirement Benefits Act, and whether they are null and void;*** ***(iii) Whether the Schedule of Costs made under the Rules is inconsistent with Section 49(4) of the Act; and*** ***(iv) Whether the process by which the sum of Kes 709,190,000/- was assessed and incorporated into the decree of 18th June 2025 violated the Petitioners' rights under Articles 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya,2010.*** I will look at each of these issues in turn below. **(i) Whether the Petition properly invokes the constitutional jurisdiction of the Court, or whether it ought to be declined on grounds of constitutional avoidance** 19. The 2nd Respondent's threshold objections merit serious consideration but, in my view, do not dispose of the Petition. The doctrine of constitutional avoidance counsels restraint where a dispute is properly resolvable through ordinary statutory or procedural means, without recourse to the Constitution. See **Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] KESC 53 (KLR)**. This resonates with the doctrine's foundational statement in **Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume [1992] KECA 42 (KLR)**, and with its recent application in **Mungai v Attorney General [2025] KEHC 8544 (KLR)**, where the doctrine was held inapplicable to a claim raising a genuine constitutional question. 20. The doctrine has real force against the Petitioners' broad, almost freestanding invocation of Articles 10 and 27 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; it has far less force against a discrete, well-particularized claim that a specific decree was entered without the paying party being heard on that sum. A complaint of that character goes to the core content of Articles 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and is not merely a disagreement over quantum, because the Petitioners' complaint is that there was no taxation-like process and that they were not given an opportunity to be heard on the figure at all. 21. I do not agree with the 2nd Respondent that this Petition is a collateral attack on the Tribunal's judgment of 28th April 2022. The authorities cited by the 2nd Respondent on collateral attack are unimpeachable as a general principle, but they answer a different question. The Petitioners are not asking this Court to revisit the finding that the Interested Parties are entitled to underpaid pensions and a surplus refund; the issue before the Court is the certification of costs on 18th June 2025. 22. Regarding the non-joinder of the Chief Justice and the Cabinet Secretary for the National Treasury, I accept that their absence has left the evidentiary record on the *ultra vires* question thinner than it might otherwise have been. However, non-joinder of the promulgating authority does not, without more, deprive this Court of jurisdiction to examine subsidiary legislation at the instance of a party bound by it, where the regulator and the Attorney General, who are parties in the proceedings before the Court, are represented. **(ii) Whether the Retirement Benefits (Tribunal) Rules, 2000 (Legal Notice No. 121 of 2000) were made in violation of Section 52 of the Retirement Benefits Act and whether they are null and void** 23. I note that this is the most contested issue on the matter before the Court. The undisputed facts are that the preamble to Legal Notice No. 121 of 2000 recites that “*the Chief Justice makes the following Rules*” in exercise of the power conferred by Section 52; and the Notice as exhibited bears the signature of Mr Chrisanthus B. Okemo, described as the then Minister for Finance. 24. This court agrees with the position taken by the Petitioners and the 2nd Respondent that Section 52 of the Act vests the rule-making power exclusively in the Chief Justice, and that, consistently with the delegatus non potest delegari principle and the authorities cited by both parties, i.e., **Kenya Association of Air Operators v Kenya Airports Authority & another [2018] KECA 884 (KLR)** and **Republic v University of Nairobi & 2 others Ex Parte Mwangi Emma Wahito & another [2020] KEHC 3353 (KLR)**, an exercise of that power by any other office, without lawful authorization, would be void. See also the classic formulation in **Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 2 QB 18**, and the recent application of the doctrine in **Wainanina t/a Seventy-Seven Auctioneers v SBI International Holdings AG Kenya [2024] KEELRC 2663 (KLR)**. 25. The difficulty for the Petitioners is not the legal principle but the proof. A challenge to the validity of subsidiary legislation that has stood, unquestioned, for a quarter of a century, and has underpinned upwards of a hundred determinations of the Tribunal carries a heavy evidentiary burden. See [**Patrick Ayisi Ingoi v Republic [2018] KECA 43 (KLR**)](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/43/eng%402018-12-20) and **Okoiti v Cabinet Secretary for Treasury & 2 others [2023] KEHC 2707 (KLR)**. This burden is not discharged merely by pointing to the identity of the signatory on a Gazette Notice. See also [**Ndiritu (Suing as Administrator for the Estate of George Ndiritu Kariamburi - Deceased) v Ropkoi & another [2004] KECA 65 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2004/65/eng%402004-12-10), where the Court of Appeal affirmed that the legal burden lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. 26. I am not persuaded, on the material before me, that a signature appearing on a Legal Notice necessarily identifies the person who substantively formulated or approved its content, as opposed to the officer through whose Ministry the instrument was administratively routed for gazettement. 27. This court also notes that no party has placed before the Court any affidavit, minute, or correspondence from the Office of the Chief Justice disowning authorship of the Rules, nor any evidence that the Minister exercised independent discretion over their content. In the absence of such evidence, and given the operative textual attribution in the preamble, I find that the Petitioners have not discharged the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the Rules were made otherwise than by or under the authority of the Chief Justice. 28. I do not rest this finding on approbation, reprobation, waiver, or delay. I agree with the Petitioners that a challenge to whether the rule-making process was defective under the ultra vires doctrine may, in principle, be raised at any stage. See [**Adero Adero & another v Ulinzi Sacco Society Ltd [2002] KEHC 1174 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2002/1174/eng%402002-12-17), and I decline to treat the Petitioners' long participation in proceedings under the Rules as an absolute bar to this challenge. The claim fails on the evidence, not on the doctrine of estoppel. I nonetheless observe that the ambiguity created by the mismatch between the preamble and the signature block is a real one, and it would be prudent for the Chief Justice, in consultation with the 2nd Respondent, to re-promulgate or formally authenticate the Rules so as to remove any future doubt. **(iii) Whether the Schedule of Costs made under the Rules is inconsistent with Section 49(4) of the Retirement Benefits Act** 29. Having found that the Rules were validly made, I turn to whether the Schedule of Costs made under them impermissibly departs from Section 49(4) of the Retirement Benefits Act. I do not accept the Petitioners' reading of Section 49(4) as confining the Tribunal exclusively to the High Court scale. The subsection, on its plain terms, gives the Tribunal a disjunctive choice to direct that costs be paid ***“in accordance with any scale prescribed for suits in the High Court or to award a specific sum as costs.”*** 30. Separately, Section 52 expressly empowers the Chief Justice to prescribe, by rules, ***“the scale of costs of any such appeal.”*** Read together, and applying Section 35(1) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, I am satisfied that the Schedule made under Rule 14 is a valid exercise of a distinct, freestanding rule-making power, not a purported variation of the High Court scale, and does not offend Section 31(b) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act. Accordingly, this ground of challenge fails. This approach accords with the Supreme Court’s guidance in **In the Matter of the National Land Commission [2015] KESC 3 (KLR)**, that provisions bearing on overlapping institutional mandates must be read holistically so that each is given effect rather than one displacing the other. **(iv) Whether the process by which the sum of Kes 709,190,000/- was assessed and incorporated into the decree of 18th June 2025 violated the Petitioners' rights under Articles 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010** 31. On this issue, I disagree with the Respondents' position. I find that the Petitioners' complaint has genuine substance, independently of the court's findings hereinabove. Section 51 of the Retirement Benefits Act provides that, where the Tribunal awards costs, it ***“shall, on application by the person to whom the costs are awarded, issue to him a certificate stating the amount of costs.”*** This implies, at a minimum, a process of quantification analogous to taxation, in which an amount is computed, presented, and certified, rather than simply lifted from a draft decree prepared by the party who stands to benefit from it. 32. Nothing on the record before the court suggests that any independent process occurred. The record shows that the Interested Parties computed Kes 709,190,000/-, incorporated it into a draft decree served on 3rd June 2025, and that the only substantive engagement the Petitioners were permitted regarding that draft concerned the applicable interest rate, not the quantum, methodology, or correctness of the costs computation itself. The amended decree, now including the costs figure, was submitted for the Tribunal's approval on 13th June 2025 and signed five days later, with nothing in the record indicating that the Tribunal independently verified the arithmetic, the applicable band under the Schedule, or afforded the Petitioners any opportunity to object specifically to the costs computation before the decree was finalized. The long-standing principle in **Onyango Oloo v Attorney General [1986-1989] EA 456**, that the right to be heard before an adverse decision is taken permeates the entire justice system and applies wherever a decision-maker’s action will affect another’s rights. 33. I do not agree with the Interested Parties' submission that the Petitioners' participation in the substantive hearing on the merits of the appeal satisfies the fair-hearing requirement in respect of a subsequent, distinct, and quantitatively enormous costs determination. The right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya,2010 and the requirement of lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya,2010 as amplified by Section 4 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015, attach to each material stage of a process that affects a party's rights, and a costs award of this magnitude is plainly such a stage that the Petitioners were entitled to test. 34. This court is guided by the decision in **Premchand Raichand Ltd v Quarry Services of East Africa Ltd [1972] EA 162**, echoed in [**Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno Ragot and Company Advocates [2024] KESC 44 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2024/44/eng%402024-08-02) and [**Westmont Holdings SDN BHD v Central Bank of Kenya & 2 others [2023] KESC 11 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2023/11/eng%402023-02-17)that costs must never be permitted to rise to a level that impedes access to justice. This required a modicum of adversarial scrutiny, however brief, before a sum of this order was finally certified and made executable as a decree of the High Court under Section 51(2) of the Act. 35. I have considered the submissions of the 2nd Respondent and the Interested Parties, and I do not accept the submission that upholding this discrete procedural complaint threatens the Tribunal’s institutional viability or the finality of its substantive judgment. It does neither. Section 52 itself provides a ready fallback; “***until such rules are made and subject thereto, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply”,*** demonstrating that the statutory scheme already contemplates recourse to ordinary procedure where necessary, and undercutting any suggestion that a remitted costs assessment would occasion the ***“institutional paralysis”*** the 2nd Respondent warns of. Nor does this finding disturb the underlying decretal sum for pension underpayments and the surplus refund, which was conclusively determined elsewhere. 36. Having considered the pleadings and evidence, the court finds that the Petition succeeds in part. The Petitioners have not established that the Retirement Benefits (Tribunal) Rules, 2000 or the Schedule of Costs made thereunder are unconstitutional or ultra vires Section 52 or Section 49(4) of the Retirement Benefits Act. They have, however, established that the specific process by which the sum of Kes 709,190,000/- was computed in the decree of 18th June 2025, without affording them an opportunity to be heard on that quantum, fell short of the standards guaranteed by Articles 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. **FINAL ORDERS** 37. For the reasons set out above, I make the following orders: ***(a) The prayer for a declaration that the Retirement Benefits (Tribunal) Rules, 2000, and Legal Notice No. 121 of 2000, are null and void is declined;*** ***(b) The prayer for a declaration that the Schedule of Costs made under the Rules is inconsistent with Section 49(4) of the Retirement Benefits Act is dismissed;*** ***(c) A declaration is hereby granted that the process by which party-and-party costs of Kes 709,190,000 were assessed and incorporated into the decree of the 1st Respondent dated 18th June 2025, without affording the Petitioners an opportunity to be heard, specifically on the quantum thereof, violated the Petitioners' rights under Articles 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010;*** ***(d) The decree of the 1st Respondent dated 18th June 2025 is set aside solely insofar as it certifies and incorporates costs in the sum of Kes 709,190,000/-: and*** ***(e) The question of party-and-party costs payable pursuant to RBAT Appeal No. 8 of 2021 is remitted to the 1st Respondent for fresh assessment in accordance with Rules 13 and 14 and the Schedule of Costs of the Retirement Benefits (Tribunal) Rules, 2000, which assessment shall be conducted after affording the Petitioners a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the computation and quantum of costs claimed.*** 38. Each party shall bear its own costs of this Petition, having regard to the divided success on the issues raised and the public interest character of the questions determined. 39. Orders accordingly. ***Dated and signed at Nairobi this 18th day of August 2026*.** **Gregory Mutai** **JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Mr H. **Chacha Odera, SC,** for the **Petitioners**; Ms **Were,** for the **1st** and **3rd Respondents**; Ms **Owino**, holding brief for Mr **Moenga**, for the **2nd Respondent**; Ms **Wanyonyi,** for the **Interested Parties**; and Ms **Neema Lwambia - Court Assistant.**