Okindi v Kenya Maritime Authority (Cause E093 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2685 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered Kenya Maritime Authority to reveal interview score sheets and explain why a job applicant was rejected, but refused his promotion and pay claims.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether there were discriminatory practices against the claimant by the respondent
- 2.whether there were unfair labour practices
- 3.whether the reliefs sought should be granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent's failure to provide interview score sheets and recruitment feedback violated Articles 10 and 35 of the Constitution
Yes; the respondent is compelled to provide the internal interview score sheets and results and to give formal reasons for non-shortlisting
The respondent is a state agency bound by Article 10 values of accountability. Upon a reasonable request, a public entity is obliged to provide access to relevant information under Article 35. Failing to explain non-shortlisting, and only responding when suit is filed, constitutes an unfair labour practice; transparency gives applicants confidence in future applications.
Whether the failure to promote the claimant or adjust his salary on return from secondment constituted discrimination
No; the claimant was not similarly situated to the three Coast Guard secondees and his secondment terms were conditional on the receiving county bearing his remuneration
Discrimination under Article 27 and section 5 of the Employment Act requires unjustifiable differential treatment. The claimant's secondment letter expressly provided that salary, allowances and annual increments would be paid by the County Government of Lamu. The comparators' secondment conditions were not placed before the court, and they were senior technical officers.
Whether the claimant was entitled to backdated promotion and salary arrears of Ksh. 6,509,000
No; the claim would amount to double remuneration and the arrears were in any event paid
Section 42(2) of the Public Service Commission Act places remuneration during secondment on the receiving organisation. The respondent confirmed the claimant was paid salary arrears for the secondment period and he did not challenge that payment. Pension contributions not effected by the county can be addressed outside the proceedings.
Legal principles established
#- A public body is obliged to be transparent and accountable in its recruitment processes and to grant feedback to applicants upon reasonable request, subject only to national security, safety or legal exceptions
- Failure to give an internal applicant feedback on why he was not shortlisted is an unfair labour practice
- Unless there is agreement to the contrary, the organisation to which a public officer is seconded bears all costs, remuneration, allowances and benefits during the secondment
Court orders
#- 1.The respondent shall provide the claimant the score sheets and results for the internal interviews for the position of Human Resource Officer (Talent Management) within 14 days from the date of judgment
- 2.The respondent shall issue a formal response to the claimant on his applications dated 4 August 2023 for the position of Principal Human Resource Officer (Talent Management) and application dated 5 January 2024 for the same position and that of Human Resource Officer (Learning and Development) within 14 days from the date of judgment
- 3.The claimant to report to court on compliance on 16 October 2025
- 4.The claimant is awarded 50% of his costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; claim framed on Article 10, Article 27, Article 35 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Employment Act (provisions discussed in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Order promoting the claimant to the equivalent of job group S with commensurate salary band and benefits
The secondment was conditional; the County Government of Lamu was to bear remuneration and benefits under section 42(2) of the Public Service Commission Act; upon return the claimant was governed by his substantive appointment
Order promoting the claimant to job group KMA5/KMA4 backdated to 1 February 2018 and payment of Ksh. 6,509,000 salary arrears with interest
Claimant was paid his salary during secondment by the County Government of Lamu and did not challenge that payment; claim would amount to double remuneration not allowed in the public service
General damages for discrimination and infringement of fair labour practices and fair administrative action
No evidence of discrimination or unfair labour practices on the secondment comparison; claimant not similarly situated to the Coast Guard secondees
Order restraining the respondent from persecuting or victimising the claimant
The claimant admitted he did not report the alleged abuse and threats to the relevant government agencies
Costs
The claimant is awarded 50% of his 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.
Upon internal and external advertisements for a vacant position, where an applicant has sought feedback on the recruitment process, as a public entity, the respondent is obliged to be transparent and accountable.
This response is owed to the claimant. Waiting for him to file suit to seek this response is an unfair labour practice.
The court finds no evidence of discrimination against the claimant based on the given facts. There are no discernible unfair labour practices.
a. To secure the claimant's rights while in employment, the respondent shall provide the score sheets and results for the internal interviews for the position of Human Resource Oficer (Talent Management) within 14 days from the date hereof;
d. The claimant is awarded 50% of his costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering is inconsistent - two consecutive paragraphs are both numbered '63' and paragraph '74' lacks a full stop, creating ambiguity in sequence
The judgment's salary figures contain apparent typographical inconsistencies (Ksh. 125, Ksh. 125,500, Ksh. 170,500) without reconciliation
Internal inconsistency in dates: the judgment states results were announced on 27 October 2023 while interviews were on 14 November 2023
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okindi v Kenya Maritime Authority (Cause E093 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2685 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Cause at Mombasa (number not stated in judgment; claimant's related petition referenced as Mombasa ELRC Petition No. E012 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2685/eng@2025-10-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.