Retired judges are being shortchanged as rising prices outpace pension reviews, the Judicial Service Commission has told Parliament, warning that failure to pass a proposed pension law has left former judicial officers exposed to the effects of inflation.
In submissions to the National Assembly’s Constitutional Implementation Oversight Committee, JSC vice chairperson Isaac Ruto said the continued delay in enacting the Judges' Retirement Benefits Bill 2025 has locked judges into a system that no longer reflects economic realities.
“Delayed enactment of the Judges' Retirement Benefits Bill 2025 is denying the retired judges fair compensation in line with rising living costs,” Ruto said, as quoted in the committee’s report.
Figures from the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics show inflation rose to 4.4 per cent in January 2025 from 3.3 per cent a year earlier. Kenya has previously endured even steeper increases in the cost of living, with inflation peaking at 19.72 per cent in November 2011 and 11.7 per cent in May 2017, periods that sharply reduced the real value of pensions and wages.
The proposed law seeks to cushion judges from such economic shocks by introducing a standalone retirement scheme for judges of the superior courts, including an automatic yearly pension increase fixed at five per cent.
“The Bill seeks to establish a dedicated pension framework for judges of superior courts, providing for annual pension adjustments pegged to five per cent,” the CIOC report captures Ruto saying.
The Judges' Retirement Benefits Bill 2025 was introduced in the National Assembly on June 19, 2025, by Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah. The Bill proposes the creation of a judges’ retirement benefits fund, into which all pension contributions by judicial officers would be paid and overseen by a board of trustees.
In addition to pension payments, the Bill proposes enhanced retirement benefits for judges, including post-retirement transport and medical cover. These provisions would place retired judges on a different footing from other public servants, whose pensions are reviewed under general public service arrangements.
The JSC defended the proposed structure, insisting that the nature of judicial work warrants separate treatment.
“The commission emphasises the unique demands of judicial service that justify a dedicated pension framework,” says JSC.
At present, pension increases for retirees are reviewed every two years, with a uniform three per cent increment applied to all pensioners. The commission says this approach fails to keep pace with inflation and does not adequately protect judges after retirement.
“If the proposed Bill is passed into law, these general provisions will no longer apply to judges, whose benefits will be handled separately under a specialised scheme,” says JSC.
Under the proposed system, judges would contribute 7.5 per cent of their salaries during active service, while the government would contribute 15 per cent of each judge’s pensionable pay. These payments would be charged directly to the Consolidated Fund.
Should the Bill become law, pensions would be paid from the judges’ retirement benefits fund created under the framework. The proposal also addresses judges who leave service due to mental or physical incapacity.
It provides that judges who exit under such circumstances would be entitled to at least 50 per cent of the pension they would have received had they served for a minimum of 10 years and retired at the age of 65.
