[2025] KEELRC 1285 (KLR)
The court found that the recruitment process, as structured by the respondents and aligned with the approved scheme of service, does not undermine the promotion prospects of serving staff. The imposition of different qualification requirements for internal promotions versus new entrants was justified by the need to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 1285 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Agoro; Applicant: Henry Muriithi; Respondent: The Commissioner General of Prisons; Respondent: The Principal Secretary, State Department for Correctional Services; Respondent: The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government; Respondent: The Hon Attorney General; Interested Party: Kenya National Human Rights Commission & 5 others
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition E066 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interim Injunction
- Outcome
- Interim injunctive orders declined; recruitment process to proceed; costs in the petition.
- Judges
- HS Wasilwa
- Legal Topics
- Discrimination in Employment, Recruitment Processes, Promotion Criteria, Equal Protection, Public Service Employment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Agoro
Applicant
Henry Muriithi
Applicant
The Commissioner General of Prisons
Respondent
The Principal Secretary, State Department for Correctional Services
Respondent
The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government
Respondent
The Hon Attorney General
Respondent
Kenya National Human Rights Commission & 5 others
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interim Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the recruitment process for cadets, professional technicians, and artisans in the prisons service is discriminatory against serving graduate officers.
- 2 Whether the imposition of higher qualifications for promotion of serving officers compared to civilian entrants violates Article 27 of the Constitution.
- 3 Whether interim injunctive orders should issue to halt the ongoing recruitment process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the recruitment process, as structured by the respondents and aligned with the approved scheme of service, does not undermine the promotion prospects of serving staff. The imposition of different qualification requirements for internal promotions versus new entrants was justified by the need to address skill gaps and was not shown to be discriminatory under Article 27 of the Constitution. The balance of convenience favored allowing the recruitment process to proceed rather than halting it, as there was no demonstrated irreparable harm to the applicants. Consequently, the court declined to grant interim injunctive relief and directed that the matter proceed to a full...
Court Disposition
Interim injunctive orders declined; recruitment process to proceed; costs in the petition.
Orders
- The application for interim injunctive orders is declined.
- The recruitment process may proceed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
Agoro & another v Commissioner General of Prisons & 3 others; Kenya National Human Rights Commission & 5 others (Interested Parties) (Petition E066 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1285 (KLR) (7 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 1285 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Petition E066 of 2025
HS Wasilwa, J
May 7, 2025
Between
Peter Agoro
1st Petitioner
Henry Muriithi
2nd Petitioner
and
The Commissioner General of Prisons
1st Respondent
The Principal Secretary, State Department for Correctional Services
2nd Respondent
The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government
3rd Respondent
The Hon Attorney General
4th Respondent
and
Kenya National Human Rights Commission & 5 others
Interested Party
Ruling
1. The application before court is the one dated 17th April 2025 filed by the applicants herein contending that the recruitment process currently being undertaken by the respondents is discriminatory, unconstitutional and unfair. They aver that he 1st respondent commenced recruitment of cadets, professional technician and artisans vide an advert dated 17th April 2025.
2. They aver that the recruitment has imposed arbitrarily harsher qualifications on serving graduate officers for promotion to the inspectorate ranks compared to civilians entrants contrary to article 27(1)(4) and 5 of the Constitution.
3. The applicants aver that the 1st respondent has set a criterial for promotion of serving graduate officers by requiring a master’s degree and at least 10 years of service whereas for new entrants only a bachelor’s degree with no experience is required. The applicants want the respondents to prioritise internal human resource development and career progression. It is on this ground that the applicants seek orders from this court to stop any further recruitment process to preserve the substratum of the petition.
4. The respondents on their part are opposed to the grant of interim injunctive orders. The 1st respondent has averred the advertisements and promotion being undertaken are in tandem with their reviewed scheme of service, which stipulates the qualifications one must have to be promoted to the rank of Inspector of Prisons. They aver that the advertisement was altered to align with the said scheme of service, which was approved by the Public Service Commission.
5. The 1st respondent aver that the advertisement and recruitment of professionals was made to align itself with critical skill gaps in the services and does not undermine and displace the career advancement of serving staff. The 1st respondents in their replying affidavit dated 2nd May 2025 set out reasons why the recruitment is necessary and does not undermine the progression and promotion of the serving staff.
6. Having considered the averments of both parties, I do find that allowing the recruitment process to go through out ways stoppage of the same and does not undermine the promotion of serving staff. I decline to grant any injunctive orders at the moment and direct that the parties proceed with the main petition. Costs in the petition.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 7TH OF MAY, 2025. HELLEN WASILWAJUDGE