Okoiti v Board of Directors, Tea Board of Kenya & 2 others; Mutai (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E244 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1296 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court voided the Tea Board CEO's appointment because the Cabinet Secretary unlawfully interfered with the Board's merit-based recruitment process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the appointment of the CEO of the Tea Board of Kenya was ultra vires Section 13(1) of the Tea Act
Yes - the appointment was ultra vires and unlawful because the Cabinet Secretary participated in the appointment contrary to Section 13(1), which vests recruitment and appointment exclusively in the Board
Section 13(1) vests competitive recruitment and appointment of the CEO exclusively in the Board. The Board interviewed candidates and forwarded the top three to the CS, who recommended the Interested Party, who scored 72.4 against the top candidate's 78. The CS's recommendation displaced the Board's mandate, and the departure from merit was unexplained, breaching the Tea Act, Article 41 and Section 10 of the Public Service (Values and Principles) Act.
Whether the appointment was made on merit and through fair competition
No - the Interested Party was not the top-scoring candidate and no justification was disclosed, so the process was not competitive and the court infers favouritism
The interview score sheet showed the Interested Party second among the top three, while the top candidate, Dr. Bahati Kizindaro, scored 78 against his 72.4. The respondents did not demonstrate that choosing him was competitive, and the appointment letter gave no reasons. In the absence of an explanation, the court holds favouritism, contrary to Articles 73(2)(a) and 232(1)(g) and fair labour practices under Article 41.
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the orders sought
Partially - prayers I, II, III, IV and VI granted; prayers VII and VIII refused; each party to bear own costs
Having found the appointment unlawful, unprocedural and void ab initio, the court granted most of the reliefs sought, declining only prayers VII and VIII without recorded reasons. Costs were not awarded against any party because the litigation was characterised as public interest litigation.
Legal principles established
#- Where a statute vests power to recruit and appoint a CEO in a Board through competitive recruitment, the Cabinet Secretary has no role in the appointment; a recommendation by the CS amounting to direction is ultra vires.
- Public officers must be appointed and promoted on the basis of fair competition and merit; appointing a lower-scoring candidate without a disclosed reason is favouritism and unlawful.
Court orders
#- 1.Reliefs in prayers I, II, III, IV and VI of the Petition dated 21st December 2023 granted; prayers VII and VIII refused
- 2.Each party to meet their own costs as this is public interest litigation
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction (Article 165 Constitution); invoked via petition dated 21st December 2023
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.
- Yoya v Kenyatta International Convention Center & 2 others; Mwaura (Interested Party) (Petition E060 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2561 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2561 (KLR)23 Sept 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okoiti v Board of Directors, Tea Board of Kenya & 2 others; Mutai (Interested Party) (Employment and Labour Relations Petition E244 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 1296 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (Petition dated 21st December 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1296/eng@2024-05-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.