Time flies with great content! Renew in to keep enjoying all our premium content.
Prime
Teleposta pension stopped from selling Sh1bn Upper Hill land
Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees has been barred from selling, charging or transferring land in Nairobi's Upper Hill, pending the determination of an appeal filed by a company claiming ownership of the property.
The Supreme Court has barred the Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees from selling, charging or transferring a prime two-acre parcel of land in Nairobi's Upper Hill valued at about Sh1 billion, pending the determination of an appeal filed by a company claiming ownership of the property.
A bench led by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu issued a conservatory injunction despite noting that the land had already been restored to the pension scheme following a Court of Appeal judgment.
"A conservatory order of injunction is hereby issued restraining the first respondent (Teleposta Pension Scheme), its agents or assignees, from selling, charging or otherwise disposing of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the appeal," the court ruled.
The appeal was filed by Intercountries Importers and Exporters Ltd, which argues that it lawfully acquired the property through a public auction after purchasing it from Trust Bank (in liquidation) following the exercise of the lender's statutory power of sale.
The company argued that unless the court preserved the property, it risked suffering irreparable harm that could not be adequately compensated through damages if its appeal ultimately succeeds.
In granting the orders, the Supreme Court said preserving the property was necessary while the appeal is pending.
"Balancing the loss and uncertainty, which would be occasioned to the applicant as against the respondents and the public, we find that public interest tilts in favour of granting a conservatory order of injunction to preserve the substratum of the appeal pending its hearing and final determination," the judges said.
The court, however, noted that the Court of Appeal judgment restoring the land to Teleposta had already been implemented through the cancellation of Intercountries' title.
This is one of the property disputes that the pension scheme has been embroiled in over the years, underlining the burden of its overinvestment in real estate.
The scheme recently disclosed that it has spent a cumulative Sh532.3 million in legal costs to enforce rent payment and ward off alleged grabbers. Teleposta has recovered several properties, including from tenants and from an individual in Thika Town in 2023 in a case where it was ruled that the scheme was a victim of fraud.
Teleposta has little cash holdings and has invested 83 percent of its assets in properties, reducing its liquidity and diversification while breaching asset allocation rules by the Retirement Benefits Authority (RBA).
The pension scheme says it has taken steps to address the portfolio imbalance, primarily through the sale of its properties in various parts of the country.
A new report by trustees of the pension scheme shows that most of its assets were held in properties at Sh12.2 billion in 2025. This represented 83 percent of the total assets of Sh14.76 billion in the period.
It also held only Sh7.1 million in cash and bank deposits while the average monthly benefits paid to members runs at about Sh64.6 million. Teleposta says it is taking action to address the current asset allocation, primarily through the sale of properties in transactions expected to yield at least Sh10 billion in the near term.
However, some of the planned disposals are held up by legal battles.
At the centre of the appeal at the Supreme Court, for instance, is whether legal principles governing title deeds apply in the same way to property acquired through a lender's statutory power of sale after a borrower defaults on a loan.
The Supreme Court noted that in previous decisions, it had consistently held that title deeds obtained through unlawful or fraudulent processes are not protected by law.
Further, the court had ruled that buyers must conduct due diligence beyond a simple land registry search to establish the root of a property's title and cannot rely on the defence of being innocent purchasers where public land was illegally allocated.
