Waqo v Governor, Nairobi City County & 3 others (Petition E117 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2944 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Nairobi County Assembly was fined KSh 7 million for silently abandoning a nominee's vetting, showing public bodies must communicate decisions promptly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents are proper parties to the petition
- 2.Whether the petitioner established the alleged violations of his rights in Articles 35 and 47 of the Constitution
- 3.Which respondents violated the petitioner's rights and the values and principles of governance in Article 10 of the Constitution
- 4.Whether the petitioner is entitled to the remedies as prayed for
Key legal issues
#Whether the failure to table the vetting report and to communicate the outcome violated the petitioner's rights under Articles 35 and 47 of the Constitution
Yes, the 3rd and 4th respondents violated Articles 35 and 47 and the Article 10 values of transparency, accountability and good governance
The petitioner proved he was nominated, vetted on 06.05.2024, that the sector committee never tabled its report within the statutory 21 sitting days, and that inquiries about the status went unanswered. The court found on a balance of probability that no report was prepared or tabled at all, amounting to abdication of a mandatory statutory and constitutional duty and a gross violation. The violation was confined to the failure to communicate and process the vetting, not to any promise of employment.
Whether mandamus could issue to compel submission of the vetting report
No, mandamus was refused
Relying on established principles of mandamus, the court held it cannot command a duty other than as imposed by statute. The statutory timelines for tabling and deliberating the report had long lapsed, there was no evidence the report existed, and the office of Chief Officer Housing and Urban Renewal was no longer vacant. Granting the order would command performance of a duty that had ceased to exist, placing it outside the legitimate scope of mandamus.
Whether general damages should be awarded for the established violations
Yes, Kshs. 7,000,000.00 awarded jointly and severally against the 3rd and 4th respondents
Guided by the Court of Appeal in Commission on Administrative Justice v Kenya Vision 2030 Delivery Board, the court held that a declaration alone does not vindicate rights and that constitutional remedies serve vindicatory and deterrent purposes. Lack of submissions on quantum did not bar the award. The court considered the strict liability attaching to breach of mandatory statutory timelines, the gross abdication of duty, the respondents' capacity, and the need to deter public bodies, awarding Kshs. 7,000,000.00 under its public law jurisdiction.
Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents are proper parties
Yes, to the extent of the reliefs for certiorari and damages against them over the reassignment
Their role of nominating had been performed and exhausted, but the petitioner also sought certiorari to quash any appointment or reassignment to the office and general damages against them. They were therefore necessary and proper parties for effectual and complete determination of the dispute, even if the claims could have been worded more precisely.
Legal principles established
#- Mandamus is a discretionary remedy which the court may refuse even where grounds exist, and cannot command performance of a statutory duty whose statutory timelines have lapsed or ceased to exist
- Upon finding a violation of constitutional rights the court has a duty to frame appropriate reliefs, not limited to those in Article 23(3), and lack of a specific prayer or submissions on quantum does not bar an award of damages
- A committee vetting a county appointment must table its report in the County Assembly for debate and decision within twenty-one sitting days from the date it first sits to consider the nomination
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the 3rd and 4th respondents violated the petitioner's rights in Articles 35 and 47 and the values and principles of national governance in Article 10 of the Constitution
- 2.The 3rd and 4th respondents to jointly or severally pay the petitioner Kshs. 7,000,000.00 by 15.01.2026, failing which interest to run at Court rates from the date of judgment until full payment
- 3.The 3rd and 4th respondents to pay the petitioner's costs of the petition and all the respondents to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (constitutional petition for violation of Bill of Rights), as read with the County Governments Act and the Fair Administrative Action Act
Relief refused
#Order of certiorari quashing the reassignment of Lydia Mathia to the position of County Chief Officer Housing and Urban Renewal
No material showed the reassignment was illegal or in breach of statutory provisions
Order of mandamus compelling the 3rd and 4th respondents to submit the vetting report within 14 days
The report was not shown to exist, the statutory timelines had lapsed and the office was no longer vacant
Claim for breach of legitimate expectation to be employed as nominated
The vetting process did not guarantee approval and no basis was established for suspending other professional or economic opportunities
Costs
The 3rd and 4th respondents to pay the petitioner's costs of the petition and all the respondents 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 declaration that the 3rd and 4th respondents violated the petitioner's rights in Articles 35 and 47 and values and principles of national governance in Article 10 of the Constitution as found herein.
The 3rd and 4th respondents to jointly or severally pay the petitioner Kshs. 7,000,000.00 by 15.01.2026 and failing interest to run thereon at Court rates from the date of this judgment until full payment.
The 3rd and 4th respondents to pay the petitioner's costs of the petition and all the respondents to bear their own costs, accordingly.
It is found to amount to a gross constitutional and statutory violation for the 3rd and 4th respondents to have failed to undertake or ensure undertaking of the vetting of the petitioner, as was nominated, proceeded and concluded in strict compliance with the statutory provisions which set out clear timelines.
Lack of material to show that the report actually exists and the time within which the County Assembly should have received and deliberated the report having lapsed will, in the Court's findings, operate as a bar to grant of the judicial review order of mandamus.
The award serves as both compensatory to vindicate the petitioner in view of the violation of his constitutionally protected rights as found and also to serve as a constant deterrent function against the 3rd and 4th respondents and other public and state bodies and organs for such public wrong.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not expressly name the court in the text supplied; the coram and the signature block identify only the judge as PRINCIPAL JUDGE
The 3rd and 4th respondents' replying affidavit is dated 23.06.2023, more than a year before the petition dated 11.06.2025, an apparent date inconsistency
The 4th respondent's communication on the floor of the Assembly states the 21 sitting days deadline 'expires on 7th August 2024', which is inconsistent with the vetting date of 06.05.2024 and the special sitting of 21.05.2024 recorded elsewhere
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Waqo v Governor, Nairobi City County & 3 others (Petition E117 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2944 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 11.06.2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2944/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.