https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2426

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT MACHAKOS CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. E163 OF 2025 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND LABOUR RIGHTS DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 3(1), 22(1) & (2)(c), 48, 50(1), 159(1) AND 258 (1) & (2)(c) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION AND VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 1(1), 2(1-4), 3(1), 10, 24, 73, 75, 29, 131(2)(a), 153 (4), AND 232 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLES 27, 41(1), 47, AND 56 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNLAWFUL RECRUITMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARY/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE NATIONAL GENDER AND EQUALITY COMMISSION AND IN THE MATTER OF THE DOCTRINES OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION, RULE OF LAW, AND VOID AB INITIO BETWEEN OKIYA OMTATAH OKOITI ……………………..…………….………………………………………....PETITIONER -VERSUS- THE NATIONAL GENDER AND EQUALITY COMMISSION (NGEC) ……………………..……………………………………………….…...1ST RESPONDENT DR. PURITY MUTHONI NGINA……………………..…………………………....……………2ND RESPONDENT AND KATIBA INSTITUTE……………………..…………………….…………………………..…1ST INTERESTED PARTY DR. MARGARET KARUNGARU GACHAGUA…………………………..…...…..2ND INTERESTED PARTY CORAM Before Lady Justice Jemimah Keli C/A Otieno JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner commenced this suit vide a Petition dated 22nd August 2025, under public interest, seeking:- 2. *A declaration that the advertisement announcing a vacancy in the office of the Secretary/CEO of the National Gender and Equality Commission (NGEC), which was the published on the Commission’s website and, on 16th April 2024, in the Press (the MyGov insert in The Star), was irregular, unlawful and unconstitutional and, therefore, invalid, null and void ab initio.* 3. *A declaration that the unlawful and unconstitutional presence of the conflicted 1st Interested Party on the shortlisting panel that recruited the 2nd Respondent as the Secretary/CEO of the National Gender and Equality Commission (NGEC) invalidated and voided the process ab initio.* 4. *A declaration that the recruitment and appointment of the 2nd Respondent as the Secretary/CEO of the National Gender and Equality Commission (NGEC) is unconstitutional and, therefore, invalid, null and void ab initio* 5. *An order quashing the advertisement announcing a vacancy in the office of the Secretary/CEO of the National Gender and Equality Commission (NGEC), which was published on the Commission’s website and, on 16th April 2024, in the Press (the MyGov insert in The Star).* 6. *An order quashing the recruitment and appointment of the 2nd Respondent as the Secretary/CEO of the National Gender and Equality Commission (NGEC).* 7. *AN order compelling each party to pay their costs of litigating this petition.* 8. *Any other relief this Honourable Court may deem just to grant.* 9. The Amended Petition was filed alongside the Petitioner’s Supporting Affidavit sworn on 22nd August 2025, and the documents annexed in support of the Petition. 10. In response to the Petition, the 1st Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 17th September 2025. On her part, the 2nd Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 18th September 2025. 11. To counter the responses, the Petitioner filed a Further Affidavit sworn on 24th September 2025, and a Supplementary Affidavit sworn on 15th October 2025. Hearing and evidence 1. The petition was canvassed by way of written submissions. The parties highlighted their submission on 18th June 02026. The Petitioner’s case in summary 1. This Petition concerns the recruitment of the Secretary/Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Respondent Commission. The Petitioner’s case is that the position is a high-level Chief Executive Officer (CEO) role, requiring a senior executive with a blend of strategic leadership, administrative, and financial expertise, specifically within a public-sector context, including expertise in leadership, financial management, governance, legal compliance, and administrative oversight. Section 21(1) of the National Gender and Equality Commission Act requires the CEO to be recruited through a competitive process and to meet the following requirements: (a) is a citizen of Kenya; (b) holds a degree from a university recognized in Kenya; (c) has had at least ten years proven experience at management level; (d) has extensive experience in public administration; and (e) meets the requirements of Chapter Six of the Constitution. 1. Further, the Career Progression Guidelines (October, 2019) for the staff of the National Gender and Equality Commission developed by the State Department for Public Service set out the following qualifications of a Commission Secretary/Chief Executive Officer: 2. Extensive service of over fifteen (15) years in Public Administration, ten (10) of which must have been at management level; 3. A Bachelor’s degree in any of the following disciplines: Gender and Development, Economics, Commerce, Business/Public Administration, Law, Social Sciences or any other relevant qualification from a recognized institution; 4. A Master’s degree in any of the following disciplines: Gender and Development, Economics, Commerce, Business/Public Administration, Law, Management or any other relevant qualification from a recognized institution; 5. Attended a Strategic Leadership Development course from a recognized institution; 6. Met the requirements of Chapter six (6) of the Constitution of Kenya; 7. Been a member of a relevant professional body; 8. A Certificate in Computer Skills; 9. Thorough understanding of national goals, policies and objectives and has the ability to relate them to the mandate of the National Gender and Equality Commission; and 10. Shown merit and ability as reflected in past work performance and results. 11. It is averred that the 1st Respondent Commission advertised for the position of a Commission Secretary/Chief Executive Office in April 2024, through their website and in the MyGov insert in The Star newspaper of 16th April 2024. The Petitioner’s grievance is that the mode of advertisement is contrary to the provisions of the National Gender and Equality Commission Human Resource Manual, June 2015 (Edition-1) that the advert should be placed in at least one daily newspaper of nationwide circulation. According to the Petitioner, the Star is not a daily newspaper of national circulation, with only The Standard and the Daily Nation being daily newspapers of nationwide coverage whose volumes are certified. 12. It is also the Petitioner’s case that the Respondents flouted the provisions of the Constitution that the appointment of officials into the public service be done through an open, competitive, merit-based, and inclusive process open to public participation, by failing to recruit openly from the general public. Additionally, the Petitioner complains that the job advertisement did not state the applicable remuneration for the position, including the salary, allowances and other benefits, contrary to Section 37(4)(e) of the Public Service Commission Act (Cap. 185) which provides that an advertisement inviting applications to fill any vacancy in a public office shall provide for (e) the applicable remuneration including salary, allowances and other benefits. On the remuneration, the advertisement simply stated: “SALARY: As Gazetted by Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC).” 13. The Petitioner avers that the advertisement, viewed against the National Gender and Equality Commission Act, the 1st Respondent’s Human Resource Manual, and the 1st Respondent’s Career Progression Guidelines, was designed to reduce the requirements and qualifications for the person recruited by excluding the following specific requirements in the Career Progression Guidelines: 14. Extensive service of over fifteen (15) years in Public Administration, ten (10) of which must have been at management level. 15. A Bachelor’s degree in any of the following disciplines: Gender and Development, Economics, Commerce, Business/Public Administration, Law, Social Sciences or any other relevant qualification from a recognized institution. 16. A Master’s degree in any of the following disciplines: Gender and Development, Economics, Commerce, Business/Public Administration, Law, Management or any other relevant qualification from a recognized institution. 17. Attended a Strategic Leadership Development course from a recognized institution. 18. The Petitioner highlights that the 2nd Respondent who was recruited as Commission Secretary/Chief Executive Officer does not meet the requirements highlighted above as she was an assistant lecturer for two years before her recruitment; she holds a Bachelors in Mathematics and Chemistry which are not subjects mentioned in the highlighted documents; the 2nd Respondent holds a Masters in Applied Mathematics, which is a physical not social science; and the 2nd Respondent has not attended a Strategic Leadership Development course. 19. Another violation identified by the Petitioner is that the interview panel included the 2nd Interested Party who is a kin of the 2nd Respondent and she did not excuse herself from the same, which was contrary to paragraph 4.4 of the National Gender and Equality Commission’s Human Resource Manual, June 2015 (Edition-1) which requires any person appointed to a shortlisting panel who has a conflict of interest should disclose and be excluded. Paragraph 4.4.1 of the Manual also stipulates that, “Shortlisting will be based on criteria derived from the requirements set out in the advertisement and especially the person specifications. The shortlisting panel should document the shortlisting criteria that they use and only candidates strictly meeting the criteria stipulated should be shortlisted.” The 2nd Respondent also did not meet minimum standards of educational courses required, minimum management experience period and public administration background yet she was shortlisted for interview. 20. The Petitioner takes issue with the fact that some high-ranking executives who applied for the position of Commission Secretary/Chief Executive Officer did not make the shortlist as they were deliberately locked out, in favour of the 2nd Respondent, and urges the Court to intervene. 21. The Petitioner pleads that the Respondents violated Articles 10, 27 (1) and (2), 47 (1), 50 (1), 73, 75 (1), 232 (1), 249 (1) and (2), 252, 258 and 258 of the Constitution; and Section 5 of the Employment Act. Respondents’ and Interested Party’s cases in brief 1st Respondent 1. The 1st Respondent introduces itself as a Commission established under Section 3 of the National Gender and Equality Commission Act 2011 and a successor in title to the Kenya National Human Rights and Equality Commission established by Article 59 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. It states that its functions under Section 8 of the NGEC Act include promoting gender equality and freedom from discrimination in accordance with Article 27 of the Constitution; and monitoring, facilitating and advising on the integration of the principles of equality and freedom from discrimination in all national and county policies, laws, and administrative regulations in all public and private institutions. 2. The 1st Respondent explains that it is made up of a chairperson and four other members appointed in accordance with the Constitution and the NGEC Act. It is also explains that the Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer is appointed through a competitive recruitment process as per Section 21 of the NGEC Act, with the person being required to meet the qualifications as particularized by the Petitioner. 3. In respect to the appointment of the 2nd Respondent as Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer, it is averred that the office of the Commission Secretary/ Chief executive officer fell vacant in March 2024 which resulted in the publication of advertisements for this vacancy on 16th April 2025 through MYGov and The Star newspaper inviting suitable candidates to apply for the said position. The advertisement detailed all the academic and expertise requirements needed for the position, and after running for a period of 21 days (which lapsed on 7th May, 2024), a total of 74 applications were received, among them the 2nd Respondent’s. The 74 applicants were subjected to the shortlisting process which included verification of the documents presented and assessment on the relevant expertise required for the position, and 6 candidates were shortlisted for the position, the 2nd Respondent being among them. Thereafter, the 6 candidates were subjected to interviews on 20th June 2024 and the 2nd Respondent was eventually selected from the 6 shortlisted candidates for appointment to the position of the Commission Secretary/Chief Executive Officer. According to the 1st Respondent, the appointment of the 2nd Respondent was therefore on merit. 4. The 1st Respondent emphasizes that contrary to the Petitioner’s claims, the Star Newspaper circulates and is issued for free every Tuesday of the week hence is a newspaper of national circulation, with certified nationwide distribution. The advertisement of 16th April 2024 therefore had a wide reach, with publication in this specific newspaper being designed to avoid costs to any intended applicant. The 1st Respondent therefore denies the claim that the manner in which the advertisement for vacancy in the position of Commission Secretary/ Chief executive officer was published flouted the provision of the 1st Respondent’s Human Resource Manual, June 2015 (Edition -1). The 1st Respondent clarifies that in addition to the MyGov insert in The Star newspaper, and the National Gender and Equality Commission website, the advertisement was also published in the Commission’s social media accounts (Facebook-https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=841858344635991&set=a.291597562995408 and X handle- https://x.com/NGECKenya/status/1780142842620285412) and further submitted to the National Council for Persons with Disabilities vide letter NGEC/AG.CS/GEN/VOL.1(17) for conversion to accessible formats to PWDs and dissemination. This satisfies the requirement for wide circulation under the National Gender and Equality Commission Human Resource Manual, June 2015 (Edition -1), powers conferred under Section 11 (3) of the NGEC Act 2011. 5. In support of their position that advertisement in the listed mediums was sufficient, the 1st Respondent points out that the Courts have held that publication in a national newspaper and online platforms constitutes sufficient notice for public participation in appointments, as it reaches a broad audience. 6. The 1st Respondent affirms that the recruitment of the 2nd Respondent was not only competitive, transparent, and compliant with Section 21 of the NGEC Act 2011 which calls for appointment through a competitive recruitment process, but also observed competence and suitability as in accordance to Article 73(2)(a) & (b) of the Constitution, 2010. Specifically, the process complied with Section 21 of NGEC Act 2011 on the procedure for recruitment of the Commission Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer. 7. On the issue of failure to disclose the remuneration for the position, the 1st Respondent contends that the advertisement's reference to remuneration "As Gazetted by Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC)" is lawful and sufficient, since it has been held by Courts of competent jurisdiction that SRC circulars and gazette notices are binding on public institutions under Article 230 of the Constitution. Further, the setting out of explicit figures in advertisements is not mandatory under the NGEC Act, 2011 or the Public Service Commission Act, as has been well articulated by the Court, which ruled that omission of exact salary details does not invalidate a recruitment process if the information is accessible publicly. 8. The claim that the 1st Respondent doctored the advertisement to reduce the requirements and qualifications for the person intended to take the office by not mentioning the requirements under the career progression guidelines for the staff of national gender and equality commission 2019, is denied. The 1st Respondent avers that the qualifications in the advertisement aligned with the statutory requirements under Section 21(2) of the NGEC Act, 2011, which only requires interested applicants have the following qualifications: 9. a degree from a recognized university; 10. at least ten years' proven management experience; 11. extensive public administration experience; and 12. compliance with Chapter Six of the Constitution. 13. The 1st Respondent explains that the Career Progression Guidelines (October 2019) cited by the Petitioner which form the substratum of the Petition, are internal advisory documents and not statutory, and can therefore not override the NGEC Act, 2011 which is the guideline to the operations of the 1st Respondent. internal guidelines must yield to primary legislation in public appointments. Nonetheless, the 1st Respondent denies that the 2nd Respondent failed to meet the requirements under the career progression guidelines, and states that the 1st Respondent satisfied itself that the 2nd Respondent had over 10 years in management and public sector roles, including as an assistant lecturer, researcher, consultant in gender policy analysis and a member of board of governors for Kieni Technical and Vocational College and St. Joseph Allamano Secondary school, which cumulatively, is extensive experience in public Administration as required in Section 21(1)(d). Further, the 2nd Respondent’s qualification of a social science Bachelor’s Degree in Education from Egerton University, satisfies the requirement (b) and (ii) of Section 21 of the NGEC Act, 2011 and GEC Career Progression guidelines (2019) on qualifications of Chief Executive Officer by not only being a social science but also a relevant qualification from Egerton University which is a recognized institution. The 2nd Respondent also holds a Master's in Applied Mathematics, and a PhD in Bio Mathematics from recognized institutions, which exceeds the mandatory statutory qualifications. These qualifications are relevant to public administration, as they equip one with analytical, strategic, and policy skills essential for the role. 1. On the issue of the 2nd Respondent’s purported failure to take a Strategic Leadership Development Course, the 1st Respondent avers that at the time of the recruitment and subsequent appointment of the 2nd Respondent, the Public Service Commission was in the process of replacing schemes of service with career development guidelines and following this transition, the commission had issued a CIRCULAR NO. PSC/ADM/13/6 dated 11th March 2020, suspending the requirement for strategic leadership courses. The said requirement was only later re-introduced through CIRCULAR NO. PSC/ADM/A3/(68) dated 13th May 2025 after the appointment of the 2nd Respondent had already been effected. Even against this background, it is averred that the 2nd Respondent submitted documentation showing that she had attended other strategic leadership courses, the equivalent of those that are offered by the Kenya School of Government. 2. The Petitioner’s assertion that 2nd Respondent’s degrees are irrelevant is denied, with the 1st Respondent pointing out the interdisciplinary nature of public service. They state that the courts have on multiple occasions recognized that technical degrees can satisfy broader administrative requirements affirming the reasoning that suitability is to be determined holistically, not narrowly. 3. In respect of the claims that one of the members of the recruitment panel, the 1st Interested Party herein, failed to disclose conflict of interest and specifically that she was kin to the 2nd Respondent and excuse herself from the interview panel, the 1st Respondent states that it is not aware of any family relationship between the 2nd Respondent and the 1st Interested Party. The 1st Respondent also denies that it deliberately locked out 74 high-ranking executives from being shortlisted, and emphasizes that the recruitment process was fair, inclusive, competitive, expeditious, lawful and procedurally fair in accordance with Articles 27 and 47 of the Constitution, and Section 35 of the Public Service Commission Act 2017. The Court is urged to refrain from interfering in merit-based public appointments absent clear proof of irregularity. 4. All purported violations of the Constitution are denied by the 1st Respondent, and they aver that the Petitioner has failed to concisely demonstrate that the said rights have been threatened or infringed. The 1st Respondent avers that the recruitment process complied with the requirements under Article 10 and Article 73(2)(a) & (b) of the constitution on the rule of law, inclusiveness, good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability. They also complied with the provisions of Article 232 of the Constitution by observing the values and principles of public service, which include professionalism, efficiency, promptness, impartiality, accountability, and transparency within the recruitment and appointment process. In particular, they state that the same was initiated and concluded within the prescribed statutory timelines provided for under Section 11 of the NGEC Act, 2011, and was in line with 232(1)(i) of the Constitution in that the process attracted 74 high ranking officials who comprised of both men and women of different ethnic backgrounds, and also encompassed persons with disabilities as enshrined under Article 54 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 2nd Respondent 1. The 2nd Respondent aligns herself with the position taken by the 1st Respondent, and states that the publication of the advertisement for a vacancy in the position of Commission Secretary/CEO in MyGov, the Star newspaper and the 1st Respondent's website which are accessible by all Kenyan citizens was sufficient. She also states that the advertisement called for persons who meet the minimum requirements and/or qualifications for the position of Commission Secretary/CEO to apply for the said position, and specifically encouraged applications by persons with disability, youth, women and people from minority and marginalized communities. 2. The 2nd Respondent agrees with the 1st Respondent that the minimum requirements and qualification for appointment to the position as provided in the advertisement, were consistent with those provided under Section 21 (1) of the NGEC Act, and other requirements introduced by the Career Progression Guidelines (October 2019) are contra -statute, and cannot take precedence over statutory requirements. 3. The 2nd Respondent confirms that following the advertisement by the 1st Respondent for the subject position, she submitted an application vide a letter dated 6th May 2024 where she outlined her elaborate qualifications to the said position. She was informed, by a letter dated 3rd June 2024 that she had been shortlisted for the position, and was invited for an interview scheduled on 20th June 2024 at 3.00pm to 3.45pm to be held at the 1st Respondent’s offices, which she attended. Following the interview, the 2nd Respondent emerged as the successful candidate, and was appointed to the position by a letter dated 22nd July 2024. The 2nd Respondent insists that he appointment was based on merit following a competitive recruitment process. She avers that she met all the statutory as well as the requirements of the 1st Respondent's career progression guidelines for the staff of National Gender and Equality Commission 2019 by: 4. Holding a Bachelor Degree of Education Science with first Class Honours and a Masters Degree of Science in Applied Mathematics both from Egerton University. 5. Holding a Doctor of Philosophy in Biomathematics. 6. Having more than 15 years of experiences in public administration and 10 years proven experience in public administration, as well as management level experience as a Mathematics and Science Teacher at Mountain Star Academy, Nyeri in 2008; a Mathematics and Chemistry Teacher at Katheka Kai Mixed Secondary School, Machakos, from May to August 2012 during her Teaching Practice; as a Mathematics and Chemistry Teacher at Mawe Mixed Secondary School, Nakuru, from August 2015 to January 2016 where she continued teaching and mentoring students in STEM education; as a Part-time Assistant Lecturer in the Mathematics Department at Egerton University, Laikipia University, and Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT), in 2014 where she taught applied mathematics courses to undergraduate students; as an Assistant Lecturer at Strathmore Institute of Mathematical Sciences, teaching applied mathematics to both undergraduate and master's students from January 2016 to June 2018; and as Lecturer at Strathmore University, where she taught applied mathematics, developed research proposals, mobilized donor funding, and mentored students from July 2018 to January 2020. She further developed this experience by serving as Program Manager, Evidence, at Zizi Afrique Foundation, where she managed large-scale research programs across Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, and supervised/coordinated 35 staff members, from 2020 to 2023; and as Regional Manager, Action for Life Skills and Values in East Africa, where she had oversight over eight (8) non-profit organizations operating in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, and managed relations with six donor organizations, from September 2022. 7. Having experience in strategic governance roles, as a member of the Boards of Management of secondary schools and technical colleges in Nyeri County between 2022 and 2023, namely St. Joseph Allomano Secondary school, Kimahuri Secondary School, Wazaro Jet Secondary School, and Kieni Technical and Vocational College. On these Boards of Management, she contributed to governance, policy direction, and institutional accountability, all of which constitute management-level service. 8. Having experience at the national level as a member of the Gender and Education Policy Reviews Technical Working Group under the Ministry of Education (2022 to 2023), where she provided input on policy reforms on gender equity and education; and as the secretary of the Mandera County Early Childhood Development Technical and Vocational Education Taskforce appointed vide a gazette notice Vol. CXXIV-No. 247. 9. Having met the requirements of Chapter Six of the Constitution, which are not in question. 10. Not being required to have attended a Strategic Leadership Course per Public Service Commission CIRCULARNO. PSC/ ADM/13/6 dated 11th March 2020, at the time of her recruitment, but having attended other strategic leadership courses. 11. The 2nd Respondent explains that during her tenure as a secondary school teacher, part-time/fulltime assistant lecturer and a lecturer, she not only taught students, but also mentored them, developed research proposals, mobilized donor funding, and supervised community engagement projects. She further exercised management responsibilities in academic program design, coordination of research initiatives, and supervision of students; and engaged in policy-related research and advocacy, participating in evidence generation for education reforms, particularly the Competency-Based Curriculum (CBC), now Competency Based Education (CBE). The 2nd Respondent states that she additionally hosted the first Values and Life Skills Conference in Africa, thereby bridging research with public administration in education. Her final position prior to her appointment to the 1st Respondent Commission was a high-level management role, requiring leadership in fundraising and grant management. 12. It is averred that in in recognition of her professional service in public administration and management, and her contributions to advancing education, policy, and governance in Kenya and the region, the 2nd Respondent has received multiple awards, including being named among the 40 under 40 most influential people in Kenya (2023), the STEM Award (2018, Ottawa and Kenya), and recognition as the youngest Ph.D. holder in biomathematics in Kenya (2018), which culminated in a Presidential award of the Moran of the Order of Burning Spear in 2024. 13. The allegation that the 1st Interested Party is related to the 2nd Respondent is expressly denied. The 2nd Respondent points out that no evidence has been adduced to prove this purported relationship. The 2nd Respondent avers that she has been in office since 20th July 2024 and has executed her mandate with professionalism and diligence. The court is therefore urged to dismiss the Petition, for lacking merit. 2nd Interested Party 1. The 2nd Interested Party provides a correction to her name, stating that it does not include “Gachagua”. She indicates that "Gachagua" is the surname of her late husband, but she does not use it in any of his official documents or legal transactions. She further denies being related to the 2nd Respondent, and/or having met her or been in communication with her prior to the interview. Additionally, she associates herself with the averments of both the 1st and 2nd Respondent. DETERMINATION 1. In accordance with the court's direction that it would determine the Petition through written submissions, the Petitioner, Respondents, and 2nd Interested Party filed their respective submissions. The parties further highlighted submissions on the 18th June 2026. Issues for determination 1. The Petitioner distilled the following two issues for determination in his submissions dated 23rd October 2025: * 1. Whether the recruitment and appointment process of the 2nd Respondent as the Secretary/CEO of the 1st Respondent was conducted in contravention of the Constitution, the National Gender and Equality Commission Act, and the Commission’s own internal guidelines, thereby rendering the process unconstitutional, null and void. 2. Whether, as a result of the flawed process and/or in her own right, the 2nd Respondent was unqualified, unsuitable, and ineligible for appointment to the office of the Secretary/CEO of the 1st Respondent, thus rendering her appointment unconstitutional, null and void ab initio. 2. The 1st Respondent filed submissions dated 12th December 2025, where they identified the following issues:- * 1. Whether the placement of the advertisement of a vacancy in a public office was irregular. 2. Whether the 1st Respondent’s recruitment process complied with the NGEC Act, the NGEC HR Manual, the Career Progression Guidelines and the Constitution of Kenya. 3. Whether the 2nd Respondent was qualified for the position of the Secretary/CEO of the 1st Respondent; and 4. Whether the recruitment process threatened and/or violated Articles 3(1), 4(2), 10, 27, 41(1), 47(1), 73(2)(a) and 232(1) (1) of the Constitution. 3. On her part, the 2nd Respondent identified the following issues for determination in her submissions dated 15th December 2025:- * 1. Whether the process leading to the appointment of the 2nd Respondent to the position of the Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Respondent was proper, lawful and in accordance with the Constitution and the applicable statutory provisions. 2. Whether the 2nd Respondent met the requisite qualifications and criteria, for appointment to the office of Commission Secretary/Chief Executive Officer. 4. The 2nd Interested Party, in her submissions dated 14th December 2025, identified the following issues: * 1. Whether the 2nd Interested Party was properly identified in these proceedings. 2. Whether the recruitment and appointment of the Secretary/Chief Executive Officer of the National Gender and Equality Commission (NGEC) was lawful, fair and constitutional. 3. Whether the Petitioner has met the threshold for grant of the orders. 5. The court discerned the issues for determination in the petition to be as follows- * 1. Whether the placement of the advertisement of a vacancy in a public office was irregular. 2. Whether the 1st Respondent’s recruitment process complied with the NGEC Act, the NGEC HR Manual, the Career Progression Guidelines and the Constitution of Kenya. 3. Whether the 2nd Respondent was qualified for the position of the Secretary/CEO of the 1st Respondent; andWhether the recruitment process threatened and/or violated Articles 3(1), 4(2), 10, 27, 41(1), 47(1), 73(2)(a) and 232(1) (1) of the Constitution. 4. Whether the 2nd Interested Party was properly identified in these proceedings. 5. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought Whether the placement of the advertisement of a vacancy in a public office was irregular 1. The petitioner submitted as follows- The NGEC Human Resource Manual, June 2015 (Edition-1), at paragraph 4.3, stipulates in clear and unambiguous terms: “For NGEC grade 1-6, the vacancy will be advertised in at least one daily newspaper with national circulation.” The position of Commission Secretary/CEO is a Grade 1 position, the highest at the Commission. The 1st Respondent admits that the advertisement was placed only on its website, its social media handles, and in the MyGov insert in The Star newspaper. The petitioner categorically states that The Star is not a daily newspaper of national circulation. The newspapers recognised for nationwide coverage, by virtue of their circulation volume, distribution network, and historical precedent, are the Daily Nation and The Standard. The above cannot be disputed. It is clearly stated on page 18 of the Media Council of Kenya’s publication titled, “State of the Media Report, 2023/2024,” which is annexed to the Petitioner’s Supplementary Affidavit, that: • Daily Nation Newspaper is the most read newspaper, commanding a significant readership of 35% in 2023 compared to 42% in 2022. I It was followed by the Standard at 21%, Taifa Leo at 14%, and the Star at 8%. • Similarly, the Daily Nation is the favorite newspaper for many, with 48% of newspaper readers indicating it is their primary reading choice. It was followed by the Standard (18%), Taifa Leo (15%), and The Star (7%). The attempt by 1st Respondent to justify this by stating that The Star is issued for free on Tuesdays is an admission that it is not a daily newspaper. More importantly, it demonstrates a conscious decision to avoid the mainstream and widely accessible platforms. Publishing in MyGov, a government publication with limited public uptake, and on the Commission’s own website, which has a niche audience, was a deliberate strategy to minimize public scrutiny and reduce the pool of potential applicants. This action contravened its own Human Resource Manual and violated the constitutional principle of open and inclusive public participation. On 16th April 2024, the 1st Respondent placed an advert in The Star newspaper. The Petitioner submits that the use of The Star newspaper to advertise the vacancy ran afoul of the values and principles of public services enshrined in Article 232 of the Constitution of Kenya. Under Article 232 of the constitution, transparency and provision to the public of timely, accurate information forms an integral part of the values of public service. The same Article also provides for fair competition and merit as the basis of appointments and promotions. It also requires “affording adequate and equal opportunities for appointment, training and advancement, at all levels of the public service” to all. These values and principles are binding upon public service in all state organs and all state corporations, including the 1st Respondent. On its part, Article 10 advocates for inclusiveness, human dignity, equity, social justice, inclusiveness, equality, human rights, non-discrimination and protection of the marginalized. This is evidenced by the inclusion of the said values and principles under Clause 3.12 of the NGEC Human Resource Manual. By failing to employ the use of daily papers such as Daily Nation or The Standard, the 1st Respondent abrogated the duty of transparency and timely provision of information concerning vacancies in public offices. The very limited audience of the Star newspaper also translated to denying able members of the public the opportunity to apply for the vacancy. The placement of the advert therefore created unfair competition and departed from the principles of merit-based appointments. Moreover, the placement of the advertisement for the position was misaligned with Clause 4.3.1.1 of the NGEC Human Resource Manual, June 2015. This clause stipulates that: “All vacancies shall be advertised in at least one daily newspaper with national circulation. In addition, the advert shall be posted in the Commission’s website and notice boards.” It is undisputed that there are only two newspapers in Kenya recognized as having nationwide circulation, as seen in In re Presumption of Death of Mugo Njoroge [2023] KEHC 19251 (KLR) where the Court ordered the Applicant to publish a ‘missing persons advert’ in a daily newspaper, which newspapers were specified as the Nation Daily Newspaper or Standard Daily Newspaper. The nature of the office as a senior management position behooved the 1st Respondent to recruit openly from the general public. Thus, by failing to place the advert in either the Daily Nation or The Standard, the 1st Respondent abandoned the national values and principles of governance in Article 10 of the Constitution, the values and principles of public service under Article 232, and flouted the provisions of the NGEC Human Resource Manual. Furthermore, the constitutional imperative for transparent and inclusive public participation in state actions was recently reaffirmed by the High Court in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & another; Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (Interested Party) [2025] KEHC 3439 (KLR). In that case, the Court quashed a government directive that restricted all state advertisements to a single parastatal, holding that such an act was discriminatory, undermined media plurality, and violated the principles of fair competition and public participation under Articles 10, 27, and 227 of the Constitution. The 1st Respondent’s conscious decision to shun mainstream newspapers with national circulation and resort to a platform with limited reach is an example of the very conduct the Court condemned, an action designed to minimize public scrutiny and reduce the pool of applicants, thus corrupting the principles of fair competition and merit. 2. The petitioner produced the advert in Star newspaper of 16th April 2024 at pages 24-26 of the petition bundle. The 1st respondent countered the submission that the Star was not a paper with national circulation by reliance on the decision in MIGUNA MIGUNA VERSUS STAR PUBLICATION LIMITED & 5 OTHERS [2018] KEHC 9707 (KLR). Miguna sued the Star Newspaper as a newspaper registered at the General Post Office as a national circulating newspaper in Kenya. The suit succeeded hence it stood that the The Star Newspaper had the capacity to be sued as a nationwide newspaper. The 2nd respondent also countered the issue as follows- In the case of Rombo v Ouko & Another (Environment & Land Case No. E003 of 2022) [2022] KEELC 14560 (KLR), the Court granted leave to the applicant to serve the respondents by way of advertisement in a newspaper of nationwide coverage. In that ruling, the Learned Judge expressly recognized the Daily Nation, the Standard, and the Star newspapers as falling within the category of newspapers of national circulation. Further, in the case Diani Business Welfare Association and others v County Government of Kwale [2015] KEHC 1968 (KLR) the Court recognized star as a newspaper of national circulation. The Court held thus; There are however attached to the said affidavit bundles of copies of receipts being payments for the hiring of public halls of the Kenya Red Cross Society, the Kenya School of Government, Darajani and Youth Initiative, inviting constituents to public meetings. There was an advertisement in the Star Newspaper – probably the paper with the third widest circulation in the country, and county. 3. The 1st respondent contended that even and without prejudice to the foregoing submissions, the 1st Respondent was not bound to advertise the said position only on the newspaper as it had a wide discretion to determine the manner in which it could advertise for the said position so as to ensure that the recruitment process was open, transparent, inclusive and competitive as required by Articles 10 and 232 of the Constitution. The 1st Respondent, therefore, advertised the vacant position of the Commission Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer in its website and social media accounts (facebook and X handle) as deponed in paragraph 13 of the 1st Respondent’s Replying Affidavit. This fact has not been disputed by the Petitioner herein. This was to ensure that the advertisement reach wide array of audience and particularly those who cannot afford to access newspapers. 16. This Honourable Court in the case of Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v The Board, Kenya Pipeline Company Limited & 2 others ; John Ngumi (Chairman) & 10 others (Interested Parties) [2020] KEELRC 1464 (KLR) held that a website is more communicative to members of the public than a newspaper. The Court held thus; ‘That the advertisement having been posted on KPC website, it enabled any member of the public to participate and interact in the process. A website is more communicative to members of the public than a newspaper given internet is more readily accessible to members of the public than a daily newspaper which has less penetration.’ The Human resource policies and procedures manual for the Public Service (May 2016 edition) as published by the Public Service commission at Section B (4)(1) states as: - Advertisement of Vacant Posts 3 4 (1) Ministries/State Departments will advertise all vacant posts in a manner that reaches the widest pool of potential applicants and allow for at least twenty-one (21) days before closing the advert. The advert shall have the following details: the title of the post, number of vacancies, job description, person specification and the proposed remuneration. (2) The advert shall be delivered in soft copy to the Public Service Commission to be posted in its website. In the instant case the 1st respondent in replying affidavit asserted the job vacancy was posted on various platforms such as The Star Newspaper, the MyGov Section and posted on the 1st Respondents Facebook and twitter website page. Clause 4.3.1.1 of the NGEC Human Resource Manual, June 2015stipulates that: “All vacancies shall be advertised in at least one daily newspaper with national circulation. In addition, the advert shall be posted in the Commission’s website and notice boards.” Decision on issue of the validity/legality of the advert 1. The court noted the media council statistics relied on by the petitioner was about popularity of the newspapers with the The Star scoring less than the Standard and the Daily Nation. That did not prove the Star is not daily paper with national circulation. The paper has been recognized by the court as having national circulation. The advert was placed on My Gov which is currently under The Star. It was also placed on website which was recognized as more communicative than even the newspaper in Okiya Omtatah Okoiti v The Board, Kenya Pipeline Company Limited & 2 others ; John Ngumi (Chairman) & 10 others (Interested Parties) [2020] KEELRC 1464 (KLR) . The Court held thus; ‘That the advertisement having been posted on KPC website, it enabled any member of the public to participate and interact in the process. A website is more communicative to members of the public than a newspaper given internet is more readily accessible to members of the public than a daily newspaper which has less penetration.’ I find the advert met the threshold of the policy and of fairness and transparency in public service as per section 10 and 232 of the Constitution in attracting competition for the position. Indeed it was not in dispute 74 persons applied for the position. Whether the 1st Respondent’s recruitment process complied with the NGEC Act, the NGEC HR Manual, the Career Progression Guidelines and the Constitution of Kenya. 1. The petitioner submitted as follows- The NGEC Career Progression Guidelines (October 2019) outline specific qualifications for the position of Commission Secretary/CEO. The advertisement deliberately omitted several of these mandatory requirements, effectively tailoring the job description to the 2nd Respondent’s profile. The omitted requirements, as per the Guidelines, include among other things: a. Extensive service of over fifteen (15) years in Public Administration, ten (10) of which must have been at management level. b. A bachelor’s degree in specific disciplines: Gender and Development, Economics, Commerce, Business/Public Administration, Law, Social Sciences. c. A master’s degree in specific disciplines: Gender and Development, Economics, Commerce, Business/Public Administration, Law, Management. d. Attendance of a Strategic Leadership Development course from a recognized institution. By stripping the advertisement of these specific requirements, the 1st Respondent deliberately and fraudulently lowered bar, to ensure that the 2nd Respondent would not be filtered out at the shortlisting stage. This was a calculated move that corrupted the entire process at its very foundation, in order to suit a pre-determined candidate. And as it is said, a river does not flow higher than its source. The advert stipulated the following requirements for appointment to the position, which are also captured in Section 21 (1) of the National Gender and Equality Commission Act: 1. Be a Kenyan citizen; 2. Hold a degree from a university recognized in Kenya; 3. Have had at least ten years proven experience at management level. 4. Have had extensive experience in public administration; and 5. Meet the requirements of Chapter Six of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. In addition, the Career Progression Guidelines (October 2019) for the staff of the National Gender and Equality Commission expressly set down the following qualifications for a Secretary/CEO: (i) Extensive service of over fifteen (15) years in Public Administration, ten (10) of which must have been at management level. (ii) A Bachelor’s degree in any of the following disciplines: - Gender and Development, Economics, Commerce, Business/Public Administration, Law, Social Sciences or any other relevant qualification from a recognized institution. (iii) A Master’s degree in any of the following disciplines: - Gender and Development, Economics, Commerce, Business/Public Administration, Law, Social Sciences or any other relevant qualification from a recognized institution. (iv) Attended a Strategic Leadership Development course from a recognized institution. (v) Met the requirements of Chapter six (6) of the Constitution of Kenya; (vi) Been a member of a relevant professional body; (vii) A Certificate in Computer Skills; (viii) Thorough understanding of national goals, policies and objectives and has ability to relate them to the mandate of the National Gender and Equality Commission; and (ix) Shown merit and ability as reflected in past work performance and results. The decision to deliberately omit mandatory basic qualifications as put forward in the Career Progression Guidelines from the advert rigged the entire recruitment process and was fatal to the appointment of the 2nd Respondent. Under Clause 2 of Section 1 to the Career Progression Guidelines, the 1st Respondent is mandated to ensure that the provisions of the Guidelines are strictly observed for fair and equitable treatment of staff. The Career Progression Guidelines are tantamount to an “employment policy or practice” under the Employment Act Cap. 226. Therefore, they carry the same force as employment laws. In the case of Oyatsi v Judicial Service Commission [2022] KEELRC 3 (KLR), the Court held that the Human Resource Manual (akin to the Career Progression Guidelines) is a mandatory provision, binding upon employers and employees by stating thus: “The manual therefore is an internal mandatory guide, with statutory underpinnings and is in the court’s judgment a kingpin of good corporate governance in any organization worth its salt. The court finds without any hesitation that the respondent is bound by its own Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual, the same way, the employees are bound to abide by its terms in their daily work disposition and behavior. Indeed, employees of the Judiciary who fall foul of the provisions of the Human Resource Policies and Procedure Manuals would be subjected to disciplinary action in terms of the manual. Equally, the respondent cannot be heard to say that they are at liberty to cherry pick what to adhere to and what not to respect in the manual.” (Emphasis supplied). 28. By omitting the minimum and compulsory qualifications from the advertisement, the 1st Respondent did not uphold the guiding principles of leadership and integrity under Article 73 of the Constitution, which include selection on the basis of personal integrity, competence and suitability. The alteration of the requirements in the advertisement opened a backdoor which attracted unsuitable and incompetent Page 8 of 18 candidates such as the 2nd Respondent; a marked departure from the guiding principles of leadership and integrity under Articles 73 and 75 of the Constitution, and an infringement on the right to fair labor practices under Article 41. (iii)The 1 st Respondent’s misguided reliance on the NGEC Act to the exclusion of its own guidelines. The 1st Respondent’s primary defence is that the advertisement and subsequent appointment were based solely on Section 21(2) of the NGEC Act, and that the Career Progression Guidelines are merely “internal advisory documents” that cannot override the Act. This argument is erroneous and demonstrates a startling disregard for the rule of law and good governance. The NGEC Act provides the minimum, foundational requirements for the position. It is a skeleton. The Career Progression Guidelines, developed by the State Department for Public Service and adopted by the Commission, are the flesh and blood that give detailed meaning to those requirements. They provide the specific, technical and experiential depth required for the effective performance of the role. The Constitution, under Article 94(5) and (6), expressly permits Parliament to delegate powers to make technical regulations for the better administration of legislation. The Career Progression Guidelines are precisely such a statutory instrument. To argue that the Commission can whimsically ignore its own detailed guidelines, developed to ensure merit and quality, in favour of a bare-bones statutory minimum, is to invite chaos and arbitrariness into the public service. If the 1st Respondent’s logic were to be followed, then every recruitment and promotion of NGEC staff conducted under these Guidelines would be null and void. This cannot be the case. The Guidelines are an integral part of the operational legal framework of the Commission. By disregarding them in this specific instance, the 1st Respondent engaged in selective application of the law, which is a classic violation of Article 27 of the Constitution on equality and freedom from discrimination. It treated the 2nd Respondent more favourably by applying a lower standard to her than was applied to other staff members. Decision on issue 2. 1. The facts are not in dispute. The 1st respondent vide affidavit stated as follows-‘. THAT the Petitioner raises an allegation that the 1st Respondent doctored the advertisement to reduce the requirements and qualifications for the person needed in the office by not mentioning the requirements under the career progression guidelines for the staff of national gender and equality commission 2019, (Annexed herewith and marked as RJ-4 is a copy of the career progression guidelines for the staff of national gender and equality commission 2019) . THAT I wish to respond to this and state that this allegation is false. It is important to note that the qualifications in the advertisement clearly aligned with the statutory requirements under Section 6 21(2) of the National Gender and Equality Commission Act, 2011. Under this statute and the specific section referenced, it only required the 1st Respondent in its advertisement to request that the interested applicants have the following qualifications: - a. a degree from a recognized university, b. at least ten years' proven management experience, c. extensive public administration experience, and d. compliance with Chapter Six of the Constitution. THAT in furtherance to the above, it is important to note that the Career Progression Guidelines (October 2019) cited by the Petitioner and which form the substratum of the Petition are internal advisory documents and not statutory; they cannot therefore override the National Gender and Equality Commission Act, 2011 which is the guideline to the operations of the 1st Respondent. This is a position well laid down by the Courts that internal guidelines must yield to primary legislation in public appointments. THAT the Petitioner asserts that the 1st Respondent in its recruitment and appointment process failed to consider the fact that the 2nd Respondent failed to meet the following requirements under the career progression guidelines for the staff of national gender and equality commission 2019: a. Extensive service of over fifteen (15) years in Public Administration, ten (10) of which must have been at the management level; b. A Bachelor’s degree in any of the following disciplines: Gender and Development, Economics, Commerce, Business/ Public Administration, Law, Social Sciences or any other relevant qualification from a recognized institution; c. A Master’s degree in any of the following disciplines: Gender and Development, Economics, Commerce, Business/ Public Administration, Law, Social Sciences or any other relevant qualification from a recognized institution; d. Attended a strategic Leadership Development Course from a recognized institution. THAT I wish to once again state and affirm that all these requirements were met by the 2nd Respondent and the 1st Respondent was satisfied with the documentation presented as follows: a. Prior to the appointment of the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent satisfied itself that the 2nd Respondent had over 10 years in management and public sector roles, including as an assistant lecturer, researcher, consultant in gender policy analysis and a member of board of governors for Kieni Technical and Vocational College and St. Joseph Allamano Secondary school, meeting the requirements under the National Gender and Equality 7 Commission Act, 2011,which cumulatively, is extensive experience in public Administration as required in Section 21(1)(d). (Annexed herewith and marked as RJ-5 (a) & RJ-5 (b) is a copy of appointment to the board of governors for Kieni Technical and Vocational College and St. Joseph Allamano Secondary School) b. The 2nd Respondent’s qualification of a social science Bachelor’s Degree in Education from Egerton University, satisfies the requirement (b) and (ii) of the National Gender and Equality Commission Act, 2011 and NGEC Career Progression guidelines (2019) on qualifications of Chief Executive Officer by not only being a social science but also a relevant qualification from Egerton University which is a recognized institution. (Annexed herewith and marked as RJ-6 is a copy of the Bachelor’s Degree in Education from Egerton University) c. The 2nd Respondent meets and exceeds the statutory qualifications: the 2nd Respondent holds a Bachelor's degree in Education, a Master's in Applied Mathematics, and a PhD in Bio Mathematics from recognized institutions. These qualifications are relevant to public administration, as they equip one with analytical, strategic, and policy skills essential for the role. (Annexed herewith and marked as RJ-7 (a)(b) is a copy of the Master's in Applied Mathematics, and a PhD in Bio Mathematics from recognized institutions) d. In response to the strategic Leadership Development Course, it would be prudent to note that at the time when the recruitment and subsequent appointment of the 2nd Respondent was taking place, the Public Service Commission, was in the process of replacing schemes of service with career development guidelines and following this transition, the commission had issued a CIRCULAR NO. PSC/ADM/13/6 dated 11th March, 2020, suspending the requirement for strategic leadership courses. (Annexed herewith and marked as RJ-8 is a copy of the CIRCULAR NO. PSC/ADM/13/6 dated 11th March, 2020) e. The said requirement was only re-introduced through CIRCULAR NO. PSC/ADM/A3/(68) dated 13th May, 2025 after the appointment of the 2nd Respondent had already been effected. 8 (Annexed herewith and marked as RJ-9 is a copy of the CIRCULAR NO. PSC/ADM/A3/(68) dated 13th May, 2025) f. The 1st Respondent however took note that the 2nd Respondent had provided documentation showing that she had attended other strategic leadership courses, equivalent to those that are offered by the Kenya School of Government. The Petitioner's allegation of lacking such in paragraph 16(iv) is false and unsupported by evidence. (Annexed herewith and marked as RJ-10 (a), RJ-10 (b), & RJ-10 (c) is a copy of leadership certificate on Insights Discovery Beginning the Journey by Raiser, a 9 month Rising Leadership Institute Program by Collective Rising Institute and SU Team Leaders Development Programme by Strathmore University) 25. THAT the Petitioners assertion that 2nd Respondent’s degrees are irrelevant deviates from the interdisciplinary nature of public service, where the courts have on many instances recognized that technical degrees can satisfy broader administrative requirements affirming the reasoning that suitability is to be determined holistically, not narrowly. (see Council of Governors versus Salaries and Remuneration Commission [2017] eKLR and Benson Riitho Mureithi v J.W. Wakhungu & 2 Others [2014] eKLR) . 2. The 2nd respondent stated that she met the statutory requirements under section 21 of the NGEC Act. The court, from the replying affidavit, established that the 2nd respondent graduated in December 2013 and her first post graduation job was at JKUAT from 2014. The court then agreed she did not meet the 15 years of experience as per the career progression guidelines contrary to the assertions by the 1st respondent, but she met the statutory provisions. Section 21 (2) of the National Gender and Equality Commission Act, 2011,provides as follows; ‘A person shall be qualified for appointment as a secretary to the Commission if the person – a) is a citizen of Kenya; b) holds a degree from a university recognized in Kenya; c) has had at least ten years proven experience at management level; d) has extensive experience in public in administration; and e) meets the requirements of Chapter Six of the Constitution.’ I find it is best practice for the employer to apply its own policies developed further to the statutory provisions. However, the statute is superior. The 2nd respondent, having met the statutory qualifications, I find no basis to intervene in her employment. I upheld the decision in Henry Mutundu v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & another; Attorney General (Interested Party) [2019] KEELRC 1889 (KLR), where this Honourable Court quashed an advertisement notice placed by IEBC for including qualifications for position of the Commission Secretary that were not provided in the IEBC Act. This Honourable Court held thus; “Section 10(2) as stated above indicates qualifications to be adopted in choosing the Commission Secretary. The qualifications are stated in mandatory terms. This implies there should be no regression, addition or subtraction to the said qualifications…The advertisement by the Respondent for the position of Secretary of the Respondent contains more previsions than has been provided for in the law. On the face of it, it appears that the advertisement would need to be subjected to the test by this Court before the process continues… In determining this petition, I agree that the Respondent couched the advertisement for the position of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) Chief Executive Officer (CEO) outside the provisions of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) Act and the same cannot be sustained as is worded…This Court cannot rewrite for the Respondent the correct version of the advertisement. However, this Court can order a fresh advertisement to be placed within the parameters of the law and for ensuring the right candidate gets hired.” The court finds 1st Respondent’s recruitment process complied with the NGEC Act, the NGEC HR Manual, the Career Progression Guidelines and the Constitution of Kenya Whether the 2nd Respondent was qualified for the position of the Secretary/CEO of the 1st Respondent; 1. Section 21 NGEC Act provides for the qualification of the secretary of the 1st respondent as follows- ‘**21. Appointment of secretary** (1) The appointment of the secretary to the Commission under Article 250 (12) of the Constitution shall be through a competitive recruitment process. (2) A person shall be qualified for appointment as a secretary to the Commission if the person— (a) is a citizen of Kenya; (b) holds a degree from a university recognized in Kenya; (c) has had at least ten years proven experience at management level; (d) has extensive experience in public administration; and (e) meets the requirements of Chapter Six of the Constitution. (3) The secretary shall be the chief executive officer of the Commission and head of the secretariat and shall be responsible to the Commission. (4) The secretary shall hold office for a term of five years and shall be eligible for re-appointment for a further term of five years.’ The 2nd respondent held an undergraduate degree in Basic Education (Science) from Egerton University, a Master of Science in Applied Maths from the same university, and a doctorate in philosophy in biomathematics. She had been employed as a lecturer and demonstrated management experience since 2014. On evaluation of the CV, I find, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent had met the statutory qualifications for the job. Whether the 2nd interested party was a proper party 1. I find there was no evidence of the alleged conflict of interest. Since she was mentioned adversely, the joinder was in order. Whether the petition was merited 1. The court found that the advert met the requirements of the Law, section 21 of the NGEC Act. The 2nd respondent met the statutory threshold. The process was competitive, and the selection criteria were such that the court was satisfied they met the values and principles under articles 10, 73, and 232 of the Constitution. The petition was held to be without merit. The recruitment process complied with the statutory requirements. The petition was brought in the public interest. Each party to bear its own costs. 2. The file is marked as closed. 3. It is so Ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026. JEMIMAH KELI, JUDGE. IN THE PRESENCE OF: Court Assistant: Otieno Petitioner: - Absent 1st Respondent:- Mbakaya 2nd Respondent:- Barasa 1st Interested Party:- Absent 2nd Interested Party: Ms Apiyo