Julius Singoei v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Education & 2 others [2019] KEELRC 2605 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a challenge to Bomet University College leadership appointments, confirming that University Councils, not the Cabinet Secretary, now appoint principals under Kenyan law.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Proper appointing authority for Principal and Deputy Principals of a constituent university college
Following the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act, 2018 (in force January 2019), the power to appoint vested in the University Council in consultation with the Cabinet Secretary after a competitive selection process conducted by the PSC; the Council's appointment letters of 9th September 2019 were the valid ones, and the earlier Cabinet Secretary letters of 20th/21st August 2019 were of no legal effect
The 2018 amendment to section 35(1)(v) of the Universities Act transferred the appointment power from the Cabinet Secretary to University Councils, acting in consultation with the Cabinet Secretary after PSC-conducted competitive selection. Two sets of appointment letters existed; the later set signed by the Council Chair conformed to the amended law, while the earlier Cabinet Secretary letters were issued without proper appreciation of the amended law.
Mode of advertisement of the vacancies
Online advertisement on the PSC portal was lawful; the court took judicial notice of the e-government policy and the petitioners failed to show qualified persons were excluded
The advertisement was placed on the PSC website and twenty-seven candidates were shortlisted. The court took judicial notice of the e-government policy favouring digitisation of government processes. The petitioners did not demonstrate that the online method excluded a significant number of qualified persons, so no violation of the Constitution was established.
Whether the petition met the constitutional threshold
The petition failed to demonstrate violations of Articles 2(1) and 10 and should have been brought as a judicial review application under the Universities Act
Citing Anarita Karimi Njeri v R, the court held that the petitioners did not succinctly demonstrate how Articles 2(1) and 10 were violated. The alleged infractions had been addressed by the 2018 statutory amendment, and any remaining grievances lay within the Universities Act and were amenable to judicial review rather than a constitutional petition.
Legal principles established
#- Constitutional petitions must specifically cite the constitutional provisions violated with particulars of the violation (Anarita Karimi Njeri threshold)
- Alleged procedural infirmities in statutory appointment processes that do not raise constitutional issues should be pursued by way of judicial review under the parent statute
- Online advertisement of public vacancies is permissible given the e-government policy; failure to advertise in print media is not a constitutional violation absent demonstration that qualified persons were excluded
Court orders
#- 1.The petition is dismissed
- 2.There will be no order as to costs (public interest litigation)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (petition alleging breach of Articles 2(1), 10 and 47); Fair Administrative Actions Act, 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Julius Singoei v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Education & 2 others [2019] KEELRC 2605 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No 11 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/2605/eng@2019-12-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.