Kango & another v Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & 4 others; Kipaa (Interested Party) (Petition E018 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1563 (KLR)

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

1. 1.Whether the interested party met the advertised prescribed minimum qualifications, in particular the residency requirement and possession of a certificate of good conduct, at the time of recruitment, selection and appointment
2. 2.Whether the respondents complied with the mandatory advertisement requirements under section 37 of the Public Service Commission Act, 2017 and the applicable Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual, 2016
3. 3.Whether the appointment of the interested party as Assistant Chief Grade II of Matasia Sub-Location was lawful, fair and compliant with Articles 10, 27, 47, 73 and 232 of the Constitution and the doctrine of legitimate expectation
4. 4.Whether the petitioners established their case with the precision required in constitutional petitions
5. 5.What remedies, if any, flow from the established violations

• Where a public office vacancy is advertised with prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointing authority is legally bound to adhere to those qualifications, and an appointment of a candidate lacking them is unlawful and unconstitutional.
• Section 37 of the Public Service Commission Act imposes a mandatory duty to advertise public office vacancies widely, including on the Commission website, at least one daily newspaper of nationwide coverage, the radio and other modes of communication.
• Where an allegation made against an interested party is not controverted by the party bearing the burden of response, it stands as unchallenged.

1. 1.A declaration under Articles 41, 47, 23 and 232(g) of the Constitution and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Fair Administrative Action Act that the respondents are legally bound to consider the originally advertised prescribed minimum qualifications, competence, suitability, experience, merit and ability when approving and appointing any candidate to the position of Assistant Chief Grade II of Matasia Sub-Location
2. 2.A declaration that the respondents, in appointing the interested party, failed to adhere to the originally advertised minimum qualifications and merit-based criteria, thereby violating constitutional and statutory principles governing public service appointments
3. 3.A declaration that the respondents' failure to uphold the advertised qualifications renders their actions illegal, unconstitutional, and a violation of fair administrative action and the doctrine of legitimate expectation
4. 4.A declaration that the approval and appointment of the interested party is null and void and should be set aside
5. 5.A judicial review order of certiorari quashing the respondents' decision communicated through the letter referenced CON.ST.1/2/1/VOL.IV/169 dated 22nd January 2025 or any prior or subsequent correspondence conveying the appointment of the interested party
6. 6.A judicial review order of mandamus compelling the respondents to immediately select and appoint a deserving and meritorious candidate with the highest marks from the remaining pool of applicants
7. 7.A judicial review order of mandamus compelling the respondents to undertake a fresh advertisement, shortlisting and recruitment process for the position, ensuring full compliance with the law
8. 8.Costs of the Petition awarded to the petitioners

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.