Yoya v Kenyatta International Convention Center & 2 others; Mwaura (Interested Party) (Petition E060 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2561 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court upheld the KICC CEO's appointment, ruling that presidential approval made the hiring process lawful.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the subject petition.
- 2.Whether appointment of the interested party was procedurally done.
- 3.What remedies are available in the circumstances.
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELRC over the petition
The court has jurisdiction; the appointment of a CEO is an employment issue and the petitioner need not be an employee or employer.
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Kenya Tea Growers Association v NSSF Board of Trustees, the court held that the ELRC is mandated to hear matters relating to employment and matters affecting employers and employees. The challenge to the appointment of the 1st Respondent's CEO relates to employment, so the petitioner's lack of an employer-employee relationship with the 1st Respondent does not oust jurisdiction.
Whether the appointment of the Interested Party as CEO was procedural
The appointment was procedural; the Interested Party had the requisite qualifications and the concurrence of the Office of the President was obtained in line with the circular of 25/11/22.
The court noted the Interested Party had 11 years cumulative senior management experience and the requisite academic qualifications. Although the Board Chairperson recommended Mrs Patricia Ondeng, the Office of the President did not give concurrence, and per the circular of 25th November 2022 appointments of CEOs of state corporations require express approval of that office prior to gazettement. The process followed that circular, hence no constitutional breach was demonstrated.
Remedies
None available; the petition fails and is dismissed with no order of costs.
Having found jurisdiction and that the appointment was procedural with no demonstrated breach of constitutional tenets, the court found no basis for the declarations, mandamus or restraining order sought, and declined to award costs.
Legal principles established
#- The ELRC has jurisdiction over matters relating to the appointment of a CEO of a public entity as an employment issue, and the petitioner need not be an employee or employer to file such a petition.
- An appointment of a CEO of a state corporation made after obtaining the express approval/concurrence of the Office of the President as required by the circular of 25th November 2022 is procedural.
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed.
- 2.There shall be no order of costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162 of the Constitution as read with Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Relief refused
#Declaration that Gazette Notice No. 3753 Vol CXXVI-No. 37 dated 25th March 2024 appointing James Mbugua Mwaura as CEO is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void
The court found the appointment was procedural and in accordance with the law and the circular requiring express approval of the Office of the President.
Declaration that the concurrence between the Head of Public Service and the 2nd Respondent is unconstitutional, null and void
The court held the concurrence was in tandem with the circular dated 25/11/22.
Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to gazette Mrs Patricia Ondeng' as CEO
The petition failed and was dismissed.
Order restraining the Respondents from harassing, intimidating or terminating the employment of Mrs Patricia Ondeng'
Not granted as the petition was dismissed.
Costs of the petition borne by the Respondents
The court made no order of costs.
Costs
There shall be no order of costs. Each party to bear their own 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.
The petition herein relate to the appointment of the CEO of the 1st respondent which in my view is an employment issue and the petitioner need not be an empoyee or employer to file this petition.
In view of the process followed and in accordance with the law and circular in place, it is my fining that the appointment of the interested party was procedural and there is no breach of any constitutional tenet demonstrated so far.
In view of the above I find that the petition thus fails and is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order of costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the Interested Party was appointed 'via gazette notice dated 24th March 2025' in one passage, which conflicts with the date of 25th March 2024 given elsewhere.
The judgment later repeats the erroneous year, referring to 'gazette notice number Vol.CXXVI-No. 37 dated 25th March 2025'.
The judgment contains a typographical error 'fining' for 'finding' in the key holding on procedural validity of the appointment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Yoya v Kenyatta International Convention Center & 2 others; Mwaura (Interested Party) (Petition E060 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2561 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition No. E060 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2561/eng@2025-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.