The trustees of the Standard Chartered Kenya Pension Fund have obtained orders freezing a directive by the Retirement Benefits Authority (RBA) requiring them to review claims by a section of the bank’s former employees over allegedly undervalued pensions.
The claimants include more than 600 former Standard Chartered employees who were not part of a group of 629 colleagues who won a Sh2.4 billion award at the Retirement Benefits Appeals Tribunal (RBAT) after successfully challenging the listed lender over undervalued pensions.
The 629 former employees successfully argued that their lump-sum benefits had been understated following the bank’s transition from a defined benefit (DB) pension scheme to a defined contribution (DC) scheme in 1999.
On September 5, 2025, the Supreme Court upheld earlier decisions by the Court of Appeal and the High Court affirming the RBAT award in favour of the former employees.
The new group, describing itself as the “Non-629 Former Employees”, petitioned the RBA in October 2025, presenting a list of 21 claims against the lender in support of its request to be included in the compensation. The group had earlier written to the bank seeking inclusion in the payout.
In a letter dated June 15, RBA Chief Executive Officer Charles Machira directed the trustees to review the claims submitted by the former employees to assess their validity in line with the tribunal’s ruling.
The RBA instructed the trustees to undertake a detailed and independent assessment of each claim, in accordance with the tribunal’s findings, determinations and directives, within 90 days of the letter.
The trustees, however, filed an appeal before the tribunal on July 13, arguing that conducting the review would expose the scheme to substantial costs while it pursued its appeal against the RBA’s decision.
The scheme also sought a stay of execution, saying the 90-day period granted by the RBA was likely to expire before the appeal was heard and determined.
“If the reassessment ordered by the RBA is concluded before this appeal is heard, there is a risk that the intended appeal will be rendered nugatory as the appellant will be forced to comply with a decision challenged on appeal, with no guarantee that the actions taken can be reversed,” the pension fund said in its tribunal filing.
“Unless a stay of execution of the RBA decision is granted, the appellant will be be prejudiced as it will be forced to incur substantial costs to undertake a reassessment based on a decision it is challenging before this tribunal.”
After granting the stay, the tribunal directed that the matter be mentioned on July 23 for further directions.
However, even as the RBA ordered the review, the former employees argued that the regulator had failed to address the full scope of the 21 claims contained in their petition, many of which relate to alleged defects in the actuarial valuations conducted during the conversion of the pension scheme.
They also called for a forensic audit to verify all asset and fund movements from 1998 to date, and urged the RBA to allow additional former members to join the claims without requiring a fresh petition.
The petitioners further argued that the RBA had only partially addressed their complaint over the alleged unlawful withdrawal of Sh1.125 billion from the combined pension fund in 1999. They said that although the tribunal found the withdrawal unlawful and ordered a refund of Sh4.67 billion, neither the bank nor the pension scheme had explained how the money would be restored to the fund.
Before petitioning the RBA in October 2025, the former employees had written to the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in September 2025, asking it to compel the lender’s parent company, Standard Chartered Plc, to address their claims.
