https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1341

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NYERI** **PETITION NO. E013 OF 2025** **IN THE MATTER OF: ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 2(1), 3(1), 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, ac, 27, 35, 47, 50, 73, 159, 162, 174, 175, 196, 232, 235, 258, 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION) OF KENYA (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS| PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES, 2013.** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF: SECTION 5, 8, 44, 45, 55, 58A, 59, 66 AND 68A OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS ACT, CAP 265 LAWS OF KENYA** **BETWEEN** **EARNEST MWANGI MAINA………………………………...PETITIONER** **VERSUS** **THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NYERI…………..1ST RESPONDENT** **NYERI COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD………..2ND RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. The Petitioner, ***Earnest Mwangi***, instituted the present Petition dated 24th October 2025 seeking orders to restrain the Respondents from proceeding with the recruitment and appointment process relating to the nominee for the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning in the 1st Respondent County Government. The Petition is supported by the Petitioner’s Affidavit, sworn on even date. 2. The Petitioner avers that, through an advertisement published on 5th June 2025 in the Standard Newspaper and on the County’s website, the Respondents invited applications from qualified candidates for various vacant positions in the *County Secretary’s Office, the Department of Finance, Economic Planning and ICT, and the Department of Gender, Youth, Sports and Social Services.* 3. According to the Petitioner, the positions advertised in the County Secretary’s Office and the Department of Finance, Economic Planning and ICT were as follows: - 4. *Chief Officer, Governor’s Office, Job Group “S” – 1 post;* 5. *Chief Officer, Finance and Accounting, Job Group “S” – 1 post;* 6. *Audit Committee Members – 2 posts; and* 7. *Revenue Clerks, Job Group “D” – 20 posts.* 8. The Petitioner further avers that, on or about 12th October 2025, the Clerk of the County Assembly of Nyeri published in the Standard Newspaper and on the County website, a Notice to Nominees and Members of the Public. The Notice listed nominees invited for vetting before the Assembly Committees on Appointments, Finance and Economic Planning, and Legal Affairs, County Public Service and Administration on 16th October 2025. 9. The Petitioner asserts that the publication of the said Notice signified that the Respondents had received applications from interested and qualified candidates, shortlisted suitable applicants for interviews, conducted competitive interviews, and identified successful nominees who were thereafter notified of the impending vetting exercise before the County Assembly prior to appointment. 10. The Petitioner further contends that the list published by the Clerk of the County Assembly of Nyeri included a nominee for the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning, yet the said position had not been advertised in the Respondents’ advertisement dated 5th June 2025. Consequently, the Petitioner avers that members of the public could not have submitted applications for that position. 11. It is the Petitioner’s case that the shortlisting and nomination of the said nominee for the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning, was neither transparent nor undertaken in accordance with the prescribed legal procedures governing advertisement and recruitment for public office. 12. The Petitioner further contends that the 2nd Respondent failed to comply with **Section 65 of the County Governments Act, 2012**, which obligates it to uphold the national values and principles set out under **Articles 10, 27(4), 56(c), and 232(1) of the Constitution of Kenya,** in the process of nominating a person to the office of Chief Officer, Economic Planning. 13. It is against this background that the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs: - 14. ***A Declaration that the Respondents violated Articles 10, 19, 20, 21, 27, 47, 73, 232 and 235 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.*** 15. ***A Declaration that the Respondents violated the Petitioner's right under Article 27 of the Constitution regarding the right to equality and freedom from discrimination by unlawfully, illegally, selectively and discriminately nominating a person to the position of Chief Officer Economic Planning without following due process.*** 16. ***A Declaration that 2nd Respondents actions of listing a nominee for the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning without following due process infringed on the Petitioner's rights to Fair Administrative Action under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.*** 17. ***A declaration that the nominee to the position of Chief Officer Economic Planning was not selected by the 2nd Respondent from a list of competitively sourced and recommended persons as is required by the law.*** 18. ***An order be issued prohibiting and/or stopping the Respondents from proceeding to appoint the vetted nominee or any other person to the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning.*** 19. ***A declaration do issue that the process of recruitment of a person to the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning be commenced afresh with the 2nd Respondent abiding by the laid down legal procedures.*** 20. ***Any other relief that court may deem just and expedient in the circumstances. That the costs of this petition be borne by the Respondents.*** 21. The Respondents opposed the Petition by way of a Replying Affidavit sworn on 10th December 2025 by ***Kimani Rucuiya***, who describes himself as the Acting County Secretary in the County Government of Nyeri, the 1st Respondent herein. 22. Mr. Kimani concedes that an advertisement was placed on 6th June 2025 for various positions within the County, including *Chief Officer, Governor’s Office; Chief Officer, Finance & Accounting; Audit Committee Members; and Revenue Clerks*. He deposes that recruitment in the public service is continuous, multi-phased, and structured, adding that advertisements are issued at different times depending on arising vacancies, funding, legislative requirements, operational needs, or departmental restructuring. In Mr. Kimani’s view, there is nothing unconstitutional, irregular, clandestine, or improper about this process. 23. He further avers that the publication of a Notice by the Clerk of the County Assembly of Nyeri listing nominees invited for vetting by the relevant Assembly committees is an independent administrative step by the Assembly, in accordance with Articles 185 and 196 of the Constitution and Section 7 of the Public Appointments (County Assemblies Approval) Act. 24. According to Mr. Kimani, the Notice does not constitute evidence of wrongdoing by the Respondents. He holds that any inference that a listed nominee was improperly recruited is unfounded. 25. Mr. Kimani further contends that the Petitioner has produced no evidence to support allegations that the process was irregular, including the Governor’s nomination letter, minutes of the Board, shortlist, interview schedules, or evaluation reports. 26. With respect to the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning, Mr. Kimani avers that recruitment for County Chief Officers does not occur only once per year or through a single advertisement. He adds that vacancies arise for a variety of reasons, including departmental restructuring, retirements, resignations, redeployments, legislative amendments, and budgetary approvals. 27. That further, the 2nd Respondent ensures that all recruitment is conducted in compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements, and there is no evidence that the process for this or any other position was flawed. 28. Mr. Kimani further avers that recruitment and appointment are conducted with a view to achieving the highest standards of competence, efficiency, and integrity. He maintains that the Respondents have consistently adhered to the Constitution, the County Governments Act, and all relevant subsidiary legislation. 29. Mr. Kimani has further contended that non-participation in a recruitment exercise by any individual, including the Petitioner, does not amount to discrimination under **Article 27 of the Constitution**. He further contends that the principles of fair administrative action under **Article 47** apply only to persons directly affected by a decision. 30. It is Mr. Kimani’s contention that the Petitioner has not applied for any position nor sought to participate in the process, and therefore lacks standing to claim infringement of constitutional or statutory rights. 31. It is Mr. Kimani’s view that the Petition is premised entirely on speculation and conjecture and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the legal and administrative framework that governs recruitment in County Government offices. 32. He further holds that by challenging processes that are ongoing and lawful, the Petition is premature, academic, and procedurally defective. 33. Mr. Kimani further states that the Respondents employ multiple safeguards to prevent favoritism, discrimination, or nepotism, which include structured application forms, evaluation panels, transparent scoring mechanisms, and Assembly oversight. According to Mr. Kimani, the Petition disregards these realities and relies instead on speculative narratives. 34. He further contends that the Petition seeks to draw the court into matters that fall squarely within the competence of the Board and the Assembly. It is Mr. Kimani’s position that any judicial intervention to halt, restart, or alter the recruitment process would constitute interference with the statutory mandates of the Respondents, thereby violating the separation of powers. 35. Mr. Kimani further contends that the Petition has misused the language of *“public interest”* and that while the Petitioner claims to act on behalf of the public, no evidence has been presented to show that the recruitment process harmed a group, class, or the general public. 36. He maintains that the recruitment exercises were conducted openly, with public advertisements, eligibility criteria, and transparent evaluation methods, consistent with the principles of good governance enshrined in **Articles 10,27, and 232 of the Constitution.** 37. In Mr. Kimani’s view, there is no basis to prohibit appointments or restart the recruitment process. To this end, he urged the Court to dismiss the Petition in its entirety, and to award costs to the Respondents. **Submissions** 1. The Petition was canvassed by way of written submissions. On the Petitioner’s part, it has been submitted that for the Governor to validly nominate qualified and experienced persons for appointment as County Chief Officers from among candidates competitively sourced by the County Public Service Board, it is imperative that the position be publicly advertised to enable interested members of the public to apply, following which the County Public Service Board should conduct a competitive interview process to identify the most suitable candidate. 2. The Petitioner has further submitted that the Respondents failed to advertise the position to the widest pool of potential applicants as required under **Section 66 of the County Governments Act.** According to the Petitioner, this failure undermined and failed to give effect to the national values and principles of governance, including equality, equity, non-discrimination, good governance, integrity, transparency, and accountability as enshrined under **Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya.** 3. The Petitioner has further submitted that the Respondents’ failure to advertise the position, while nonetheless presenting a nominee for vetting before the County Assembly, denied both him and members of the public an opportunity to apply for the position. It is the Petitioner’s contention that this amounted to discrimination contrary to **Article 27 of the Constitution of Kenya**, which guarantees equality before the law, equal protection, and equal benefit of the law, as well as the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms. 4. It is further submitted by the Petitioner that the Respondents’ decision not to advertise the vacancy for the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning, and instead unilaterally nominate a person to fill the office without adhering to the due process contemplated under the Constitution and the County Governments Act, amounted to an unlawful exercise of administrative power. It is submitted that accordingly, the Respondents violated the Petitioner’s and the public’s right to fair administrative action as guaranteed under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya. 5. It is the Petitioner’s further submission that the Respondents’ failure to comply with **Section 66 of the County Governments Act,** in relation to the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning, and the subsequent nomination of a person to the said office, rendered the nomination process and any ensuing appointment illegal, irregular, and invalid. 6. In support of the Petitioner’s submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions in ***Hussein v County Public Service Board, County Government of Mandera & 2 others; Maalim & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2023] KEELRC 3388 (KLR)*** and ***Robert Muriithi Ndegwa v Minister for Tourism, Petition No. 41 of 2012.*** 7. On their part, the Respondents have submitted that the Petition is fundamentally misconceived both in fact and in law, and represents a classic attempt to constitutionalize an administrative process without evidentiary or legal foundation. 8. It is the Respondents’ further submission that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he applied for the position in question, that he was excluded from any process, or that he suffered any prejudice whatsoever. In the Respondents’ view, the Petitioner’s claim is therefore not only hypothetical but entirely detached from any justiciable controversy. 9. The Respondents have further submitted that the Petitioner herein has merely cited constitutional provisions in a sweeping manner without demonstrating how they have been violated in relation to him or any identifiable class of persons. 10. The Respondents further submit that the invocation of public interest in this matter is misplaced and amounts to an abuse of that doctrine. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner has not placed before this Court any evidence of systemic failure, exclusion of marginalized groups, or public harm arising from the impugned recruitment. In the Respondent’s view, what is presented instead is a generalized dissatisfaction dressed in constitutional language. 11. According to the Respondents, recruitment within county governments is inherently fluid and responsive. On this score, the Respondents posit that vacancies arise at different times due to resignations, redeployments, restructuring, or budgetary adjustments and that it would be impractical and contrary to good governance to require that all such vacancies be frozen until a comprehensive advertisement is issued. 12. The Respondents further contend that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the principles of fairness, transparency, and merit were violated. 13. In further submission, the Respondents have stated that the recruitment and nomination process fully complied with the constitutional and statutory framework governing public service appointments. It is the Respondents’ submission that **Section 45 of the County Governments Act** provides a structured process involving competitive sourcing by the County Public Service Board, nomination by the Governor, and approval by the County Assembly. In the Respondents’ view this tripartite process is deliberately designed to ensure checks and balances, accountability, and public participation. 14. It is the Respondents’ further submission that there is no evidence that the Board failed to competitively source candidates, no evidence that the Governor acted outside the recommendations of the Board, and no evidence that the County Assembly’s vetting process was compromised. 15. The Respondents have contended that the claims of violation of **Articles 10, 27, 47, 73, 232, and 235 of the Constitution** are unsubstantiated. In the same vein, the Respondents have submitted that the principles of equality and non-discrimination under Article 27 cannot be invoked by a party who did not participate in the process and was not subjected to any differential treatment. That further, the right to fair administrative action under Article 47 presupposes the existence of a decision affecting a person’s rights or interests, which is not the case here. 16. The Respondents have further posited that to halt or invalidate the recruitment process in the absence of clear illegality would amount to judicial overreach and an unwarranted intrusion into the functions of the executive and legislative arms of county government. It is the Respondents’ position that such intervention would not only disrupt governance but also set a dangerous precedent where courts are invited to micromanage routine administrative functions. **Analysis and Determination** 1. The Court has carefully considered the pleadings filed by the parties, the evidence on record, and the rival submissions, and has identified the following issues for determination: - 2. ***Whether the Petitioner has the requisite locus standi to institute the present Petition;*** 3. ***Whether the Petition meets the threshold applicable to Constitutional Petitions; and*** 4. ***Whether the recruitment process for the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning, in the 1st Respondent County Government was conducted in violation of the Constitution and the applicable statutory provisions.*** **Locus standi?** 1. The Respondents contend that the Petitioner lacks the requisite *locus standi* to institute and maintain the present Petition. While the Respondents acknowledge that **Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution** have expanded access to the courts, they have posited that such access is not absolute, and that a Petitioner must demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the alleged violation and either personal prejudice suffered or a bona fide public interest founded on fact and law. 2. As **Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution** are central to the determination of this issue, I shall reproduce them hereunder. **Article 22** provides as follows: - **“[22]. Enforcement of Bill of Rights** **(1) Every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened.** **(2) In addition to a person acting in their own interest, court proceedings under clause (1) may be instituted by—** **(a) a person acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name;** **(b) a person acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons;** **(c) a person acting in the public interest; or** **(d) an association acting in the interest of one or more of its members”** While Article 258 of the Constitution is couched as follows: - **“[258]. Enforcement of this Constitution** **(1) Every person has the right to institute court proceedings, claiming that this Constitution has been contravened, or is threatened with contravention.** **(2) In addition to a person acting in their own interest, court proceedings under clause (1) may be instituted by—** **(a) a person acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name;** **(b) a person acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons;** **(c) a person acting in the public interest; or** **(d) an association acting in the interest of one or more of its members.”** 1. What manifests from the foregoing constitutional provisions is that, following the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, the doctrine of *locus standi* was considerably expanded, thereby granting a broader category of persons the capacity to move the Court for the enforcement of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 2. In this regard, the Supreme Court in ***Mumo Matemu vs Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2014] eKLR***held as follows: - **“[67] It is to be noted that the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution enlarged the scope of *locus standi,* in Kenya. Articles 22 and 258 have empowered *every person*, whether corporate or non-incorporated, to move the Courts, contesting any contravention of the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution in general. In *John Wekesa Khaoya v. Attorney General,*Petition No. 60 of 2012; [2013] eKLR the High Court thus expressed the principle (paragraph 4):** ***“…the locus standi to file judicial proceedings, representative or otherwise, has been greatly enlarged by the Constitution in Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution which ensures unhindered access to justice…”*** 1. The Petitioner in the present case has described himself as a Kenyan citizen who has instituted this Petition in that capacity for the enforcement of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, pursuant to Article 258(1) of the Constitution. 2. **Article 258(2) of the Constitution** sets out the categories of persons who may institute court proceedings alleging that the Constitution has been contravened or is threatened with contravention, as follows: - 3. *a person acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name;* 4. *a person acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons;* 5. *a person acting in the public interest; or* 6. *an association acting in the interest of one or more of its members.* 7. It is evident that in the instant case, the Petitioner challenges the recruitment of the Chief Officer, Economic Planning, in the 1st Respondent County Government. 8. It is not in dispute that the 1st Respondent is a County Government established under **Articles 6** and **176(1)** and the First Schedule of the Constitution, while the 2nd Respondent is a County Public Service Board established under **Section 57 of the County Governments Act**. 9. It therefore follows that any recruitment exercise undertaken by the Respondents is a matter of public concern, given that the mandate to undertake such recruitment flows from **Article 235(1) of the Constitution**. The dispute consequently falls within the realm of public interest. 10. Additionally, **Article 3 of the Constitution** enjoins every person to respect, uphold, and defend the Constitution. In effect, this provision confers *locus standi* upon any person to institute court proceedings for the enforcement of the Constitution. 11. In conclusion on this issue, I reiterate the position taken by the Court of Appeal in its determination in the case of ***Nature Foundation Limited vs Minister for Information and Communication & another [2015] eKLR***, thus: - ***“The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 had been in force for almost a year, by the time the learned judge was delivering her ruling. She therefore, with greatest respect, erred in finding that the appellant had no locus standi to sustain the suit. We think that courts had departed from the strict and stringent requirement of sufficient interest long before the current matter was instituted. As stated by other Courts before us, we cannot cling to an outdated relic of law when in actual sense there has been a remarkable development and fundamental departure from the old school of legal thinking and approach. Courts must make themselves aware of the new jurisprudential trend and avoid living in the annals of the dark legal history of this country which limited judicial intervention in judicial review and constitutional litigation through narrow and strict interpretation. We are past that stage, and any court clinging to the old approach would with utmost respect, be frowned upon.”*** 1. In sum, this Court finds and holds that the Petitioner has the requisite *locus standi* to institute the present Petition. **Threshold for constitutional petition?** 1. The Respondents have submitted that the Petitioner has merely invoked constitutional provisions in a general and sweeping manner, without demonstrating the specific manner in which the alleged violations have been committed in relation to him or any identifiable class of persons. 2. The legal threshold for a constitutional petition was established in the decision of ***Anarita Karimi Njeru vs Attorney General [1979] KLR 154*** in the following terms: - ***“We would however again stress that if a person is seeking redress from the High Court on a matter which involves a reference to the Constitution, it is important (if only to ensure that justice is done to his case) that he should set out with reasonable degree of precision that of which he complains, the provision said to be infringed.”*** 1. This principle was further elaborated under **Rule 10(2) of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 (commonly referred to as “the Mutunga Rules”)** in the following terms: - ***[10](2) The petition shall disclose the following—*** ***(a) the petitioner’s name and address;*** ***(b) the facts relied upon;*** ***(c) the constitutional provision violated;*** ***(d) the nature of injury caused or likely to be caused to the petitioner or the person in whose name the petitioner has instituted the suit; or in a public interest case to the public, class of persons or community;*** ***(e) details regarding any civil or criminal case, involving the petitioner or any of the petitioners, which is related to the matters in issue in the petition;*** ***(f) the petition shall be signed by the petitioner or the advocate of the petitioner; and*** ***(g) the relief sought by the petitioner.*** 1. In relation to case law, the Court of Appeal in ***Mumo Matemu vs Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2013] eKLR*** reaffirmed this principle in the following terms: - **“(43) The petition before the High Court referred to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 19, 20 and 73 of the Constitution in its title. However, the petition provided little or no particulars as to the allegations and the manner of the alleged infringements. For example, in paragraph 2 of the petition, the 1st respondent averred that the appointing organs ignored concerns touching on the integrity of the appellant. No particulars were enumerated. Further, paragraph 4 of the petition alleged that the** **Government of Kenya had overthrown the Constitution, again, without any particulars. At paragraph 5 of the amended petition, it was alleged that the respondents have no respect for the spirit of the Constitution and the rule of law, without any particulars.** **(44) We wish to reaffirm the principle holding on this question** **in** ***Anarita Karimi Njeru****(supra)*. **In view of this, we find that the petition before the High Court did not meet the threshold established in that case. At the very least, the 1st respondent should have seen the need to amend the petition so as to provide sufficient particulars to which the respondents could reply. Viewed thus, the petition fell short of the very substantive test to which the High Court referred to. In view of** **the substantive nature of these shortcomings, it was not enough for the superior court below to lament that the petition before it was not the “epitome of precise, comprehensive, or elegant drafting,” without requiring remedy by the 1st respondent.”** 1. In the *Mumo Matemu case* (supra), the Court further emphasized the importance of precision in pleadings, noting that it enables both the parties and the Court to clearly understand the issues in dispute. The Court also underscored that pleadings constitute an integral aspect of substantive justice, as they provide fair notice to the opposing party. 2. A consideration of the present Petition shows that the Petitioner has cited various constitutional provisions as forming its legal foundation and has further provided particulars within the body of the Petition regarding the alleged constitutional infractions by the Respondents. Indeed, the Petition is largely anchored on alleged violations of Articles 10, 27, 47, and 235 of the Constitution in relation to the recruitment of the Chief Officer, Economic Planning in the 1st Respondent County Government. 3. In the *Mumo Matemu case (supra)*, the Court expressed itself as follows: - **“(41) We cannot but emphasize the importance of precise claims in due process, substantive justice, and the exercise of jurisdiction by a court. In essence, due process, substantive justice and the exercise of jurisdiction are a function of precise legal and factual claims. However, we also note that precision is not coterminous with exactitude. Restated, although precision must remain a requirement as it is important, it demands neither formulaic prescription of the factual claims nor formalistic utterance of the constitutional provisions alleged to have been violated. We speak particularly knowing that the whole function of pleadings, hearings, submissions and the judicial decision is to define issues in litigation and adjudication, and to demand exactitude ex ante is to miss the point.”** 1. I concur with the foregoing pronouncements. In my respectful view, what is material is not the form or style in which the alleged violation of constitutional rights is pleaded, but whether the specific violations, together with the particulars of the alleged violation, can be discerned from the pleadings. 2. Upon considering the constitutional provisions alleged to have been violated within the context of the entire Petition, it is possible to identify the violations complained of by the Petitioner as well as the manner in which those violations are alleged to have been committed by the Respondents. In my considered view, this satisfies the requirement of reasonable precision. 3. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Petition is competently before the Court, having demonstrated with a reasonable degree of precision the constitutional violations alleged to have been committed by the Respondents and the particulars constituting the alleged violations. **Violation of the Constitution and statutory provisions in the recruitment process of the Chief Officer of the Economic Planning in the 1st Respondent County Government?** 1. The central issue for determination in this matter concerns the recruitment process for the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning in the 1st Respondent County Government. 2. The Petitioner contends that the Clerk of the County Assembly of Nyeri published the name of a nominee for appointment as Chief Officer, Economic Planning, notwithstanding that the said position had not been advertised to the public in the Respondents’ advertisement dated 5th June 2025. On that basis, the Petitioner argues that the shortlisting and eventual nomination of the said nominee lacked transparency and failed to adhere to the prescribed legal procedures. 3. In opposing the Petition, the Respondents assert that recruitment for county offices is not confined to a single annual exercise or advertisement. They state that vacancies may arise at different times due to factors such as departmental restructuring, retirements, resignations, redeployments, legislative changes, and budgetary approvals. 4. To support his case, the Petitioner annexed to his Supporting Affidavit a copy of an advertisement issued by the 1st Respondent inviting applications for several positions, namely: *Chief Officer, Governor’s Office, (1 post); Chief Officer, Finance and Accounting, (1 post); Audit Committee Members (2 posts); Revenue Clerks, (20 posts); Director, Youth Affairs and Sports, (1 post); Social Welfare Officer II, (2 posts); Social Welfare Officer III, (2 posts); and Firemen, (3 posts).* 5. The Petitioner further annexed a Notice issued by the County Assembly of Nyeri addressed to nominees for the various positions and members of the public. The Notice scheduled the nominees for vetting by the County Assembly on 16th October 2025 and invited members of the public to attend the approval hearings. Members of the public were also invited to submit written representations containing any information relevant to the suitability of the nominees. 6. Notably, the Notice issued by the County Assembly of Nyeri included the name of a nominee for the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning. However, the said position did not form part of the vacancies advertised by the 1st Respondent in the advertisement produced by the Petitioner. 7. It is worth pointing out that the Respondents did not place before the Court any evidence to rebut the Petitioner’s assertion that the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning, had not been advertised in a manner similar to the other positions for which nominees had been identified. 8. Indeed, although the Respondents consistently maintained that all recruitment processes were undertaken in compliance with the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions, no evidence was tendered in support of that assertion. 9. It is common ground that vetting by the County Assembly constitutes the final stage of the recruitment process. By that stage, candidates are ordinarily expected to have been shortlisted, interviewed, and the successful candidates nominated for appointment to the respective offices. 10. While it is possible that the vacancy for the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning may have arisen after the advertisement of the other positions, thereby necessitating a separate recruitment process, the Respondents were nevertheless under an obligation to invite applications for the said position through a transparent process, just as they had done in respect of the other advertised vacancies. 11. There can be no dispute that the office of Chief Officer in a County Government is a public office, and appointments thereto must comply with **Articles 10, 73(2), and 232 of the Constitution**. In particular, **Article 10(2)** enshrines the national values and principles of governance, including the rule of law, good governance, integrity, transparency, and accountability. **Article 73(2)(a)** provides that leadership and integrity shall be guided by, *inter alia,* selection on the basis of personal integrity, competence, and suitability. Further, **Article 232(1)(g)** provides for values and principles of public service to include fair competition and merit as the basis of appointments and promotions. 12. What’s more, **Section 45(1) of the County Governments Act** requires a Governor to nominate qualified and experienced County Chief Officers from among persons competitively sourced and recommended by the County Public Service Board within 14 days of the occurrence of a vacancy. 13. It therefore follows that nomination to the office of County Chief Officer must be preceded by a competitive recruitment process. Such a process entails inviting applications from qualified persons through an open, transparent, and competitive procedure. 14. Further, **Section 66 of the County Governments Act** is explicit that where a public office is to be filled, the County Public Service Board shall invite applications through advertisement and other modes of communication designed to reach as wide a pool of potential applicants as possible, particularly persons who may have been disadvantaged for any reason. 15. In the present case, there is no evidence on record demonstrating that the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning in the 1st Respondent County Government was subjected to any competitive recruitment process prior to the nomination of the individual whose name appeared in the Notice issued for vetting by the County Assembly of Nyeri. 16. In the absence of evidence showing that the nomination process for the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning in the 1st Respondent County Government was competitive and transparent, it is evident that the Respondents failed to accord all qualified persons an equal opportunity to compete for the position. No doubt, this conduct runs afoul of **Section 68(1)(a) of the County Governments Act,** which enjoins every County Public Service Board to promote equal opportunity within the county public service and to implement strategies aimed at eliminating discrimination on grounds such as ethnicity, gender, religion, health status, marital status, or disability. 17. In view of the foregoing, and there being no proof that the nomination for the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning in the 1st Respondent County Government was undertaken through a transparent and competitive process, the Court finds that the Respondents acted in violation of **Articles 10(2), 73(2)(a),** and **232(1)(g) of the Constitution,** as well as **Sections 45, 66, and 68(1)(a) of the County Governments Act.** 18. Concluding on this issue, I echo the sentiments expressed by the Court inthe case of ***Community Advocacy and Awareness Trust & 8 others v Attorney General & 6 others [2012] eKLR*,** thus: ***“[73] 27th August 2010 ushered in a new regime of appointments to public office. Whereas******the past was characterised by open corruption, tribalism, nepotism, favouritism, scrapping the******barrel and political patronage, the new dispensation requires a break from the past. The******Constitution signifies that the end of ‘jobs for the boys’ era. Article 10 sets out the values that******must be infused in every decision making process including that of making appointments.”*** 1. All things considered, the Court finds that the process culminating in the nomination of the person for appointment to the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning in the 1st Respondent County Government was undertaken in violation of the Constitution and the provisions of the County Governments Act. **Disposition** 1. In the final analysis, the Petition dated 24th October 2025 is allowed, and the Court accordingly issues the following orders: - 2. ***A declaration is hereby issued that the Respondents violated Articles 10(2), 73(2)(a), and 232(1)(g) of the Constitution, as well as Sections 45, 66, and 68(1)(a) of the County Governments Act, in the nomination of the nominee for the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning in the 1st Respondent County Government.*** 3. ***An order is hereby issued prohibiting the Respondents from proceeding with the appointment of the nominee named in the vetting notice to the office of Chief Officer, Economic Planning in the 1st Respondent County Government.*** 4. ***An order is hereby issued directing that the recruitment process for the position of Chief Officer, Economic Planning in the 1st Respondent County Government, be commenced afresh in strict compliance with the Constitution and the relevant statutory provisions.*** 5. ***There shall be no order as to costs.*** **DATED, SIGNED** and **DELIVERED** at **NYERI** this **15th** dayof **May,** 2026. ……………………………… **STELLA RUTTO** **JUDGE** **In the presence of**: Mr. Mare for the Petitioner Ms. Nyambura instructed by Mr. Alakonya for the Respondent Ndati Court Assistant **ORDER** In view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with **Order 21 Rule 1** of **the Civil Procedure Rules**, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court had been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of **Section 1B** of the **Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya)** which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes. **STELLA RUTTO** **JUDGE**