Vincent Omao Mariita v County Government of Nyamira & 4 others; Godfrey Kiriago Nyangau & another (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 171 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled that county governments cannot handpick staff for jobs under the guise of 'secondment' — such appointments must be advertised and competitive.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the secondment of the Interested Parties was procedural
The recruitment and secondment was unprocedural and unconstitutional as it violated constitutional values of fair competition and merit.
The court analysed the rationale for secondment under the Public Service Commission Act, 2017 and Section 73 of the County Government Act, identifying three occasions justifying secondment: preservation of pension rights, capacity building, and staffing a new government entity. The Respondents neither sought specific skills nor advertised the positions. The Interested Parties were issued and accepted offer letters, which amounted to recruitment. The positions were filled by cherry-picking candidates without competition, contrary to Section 65 of the County Government Act and Articles 10, 27(4), 56(c) and 232(1) of the Constitution.
Whether forwarding names without stating required skills violates the Constitution
Forwarding names without reasons or special skills attributed violates Article 232(1)(g)(i) on values and principles of public service.
The court held that if the Respondents required specialised qualifications from the National Government, they ought to have written to ministries stating the special skills, experience and qualifications required. Instead, names were forwarded without attribution of reasons or special skills, offending Article 232(1)(g)(i) of the Constitution.
Whether the recruitment afforded adequate and equal opportunities
The recruitment was neither fairly competitive nor did it afford equal opportunities to potential applicants.
The instructions to the County Public Service Board were that positions be filled competitively, but the Respondents handpicked candidates. Nothing special about the two officers was demonstrated, and the procedure failed to satisfy the standards, values and principles in Articles 10, 27(4), 56(c) and 232(1) of the Constitution.
Legal principles established
#- Appointments to county public service positions must be competitive and based on fair competition and merit; cherry-picking candidates without competition violates Articles 10, 27(4), 56(c) and 232(1) of the Constitution.
- Where persons are issued with offers of appointment which they accept before secondment, that constitutes recruitment.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the appointment and secondment of the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties is illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional
- 2.An order for the revocation of the Appointment and secondment of the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties to the service of the Respondents
- 3.The costs of this petition shall be borne by the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 27, 28, 41, 47 and 55 of the Constitution (petition alleging violation of fundamental rights and freedoms)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Shamwata v Chairman Governing Council Kenya Water Institute (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 2637 of 2016) [2024] KEELRC 301 (KLR)[2024] KEELRC 301 (KLR)16 Feb 2024applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vincent Omao Mariita v County Government of Nyamira & 4 others; Godfrey Kiriago Nyangau & another (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELRC 171 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Petition dated 10th August, 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/171/eng@2021-12-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.