Kiama v Attorney General & 2 others (Cause 203 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1623 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to fast-track a soldier's pension payment because he had not obtained clearance and required execution documents from the Kenya Defence Forces.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Claimant's pension and gratuity should be computed at Kshs 2,700,000 under the Kenya Defence Forces (Pension and Gratuity Regulations) 2021
- 2.Whether interest at 14% on the awarded sum should run from 6 December 2019
- 3.Whether the Respondents are obliged to pay before the Claimant clears with the Kenya Defence Forces and supplies execution records
Key legal issues
#Applicable pension regulations
The Court did not determine the computation; it found payment was not being withheld and refused to fix the sum
The Respondents deponed that the Claimant exited service in 2006, hence the 1980 Armed Forces Regulations and not the 2021 Regulations applied. The Court, however, disposed of the Motion on the basis that payment was ready and willing once the Claimant cleared with the Kenya Defence Forces and supplied certified judgment, decree, Certificate of Costs and Certificate of Order against the Government. No computation was made.
Interest on an unexecuted judgment
Interest refused because the earlier judgment did not grant it and no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated
The Court noted the 2019 judgment was silent on interest and that delay in payment was attributable to the Claimant's own failure to supply records. Absent exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of interest not previously awarded, the claim for 14% interest from the date of judgment failed.
Preconditions to payment by a disciplined force employer
Clearance with the Kenya Defence Forces is a legitimate precondition
The Court held that a former member of a disciplined force must clear with his former employer, a process carrying security implications, and that the three records demanded by the Respondents are ordinarily required before execution can issue. The Respondents' stated willingness to pay upon fulfilment of these requirements was accepted as having a basis in law.
Legal principles established
#- Certificates of Order against the Government and related records are ordinarily required before execution can issue against the Government
- Interest will not be awarded post-judgment where none was granted in the principal judgment absent exceptional circumstances
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 8 July 2024 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court, enforcing its judgment of 6 December 2019 awarding pension/gratuity and unpaid salaries
Relief refused
#Computation of pension/gratuity at Kshs 2,700,000 and judgment thereon
The Respondents have not declined to pay; the obstacle is the Claimant's failure to clear with the Kenya Defence Forces and supply the required records
Interest at 14% from 6 December 2019
The 2019 judgment did not award interest and no exceptional circumstances were shown
Costs
Motion dismissed with costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Considering the above, the Court declines to grant the orders sought by the Claimant and the Motion dated 8 July 2024 is dismissed with costs.
The Respondents have not declined to pay the Claimant's pension. The handicap is that the Claimant has not cleared with the Kenya Defence Forces and failed to provide relevant records being certified copies of judgment and decree, Certificate of Costs and Certificate of Order against the Government.
Further, the 3 records demanded by the Respondents are ordinarily required before an execution can issue.
Issues in the judgment
#The Motion is described as both 'filed on 10 July 2024' and 'dated 8 July 2024' without explanation
Regulation cited as 'Kenya Defence Forces (Pension and Gratuity Regulations) 2021' in the Motion but 'Kenya Defence Forces (Pensions and Gratuity Regulations) 2021' in the replying affidavit
The case number, the identity of the individual Respondents and the underlying suit number are not stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiama v Attorney General & 2 others (Cause 203 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 1623 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1623/eng@2025-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.