Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK) (Suing Through Ephraim Kanake, Stephen Mutoro and Henry Ochieng) v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock Development & 3 others; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & 9 others (Interested Parties) (Petition E126 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 208 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court upheld the appointment of Agriculture and Food Authority officials, ruling the recruitment was fair and no law required publishing candidate lists.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the recruitment of the AFA Chairperson and Directors was procedurally done
The process was procedurally done; there was a public advertisement, applications, shortlisting and interviews, and the 13-day nomination window did not breach Article 10 or 232
The court found evidence of an advert in the public domain calling for applications, receipt of 85 nominations and 37 shortlisted candidates, and interviews at the Kenya School of Government. Section 5 of the AFA Act only requires competitive recruitment; publication of applicants' lists is not statutorily required. The petitioner neither complained within the nomination period nor demonstrated prejudice from non-publication of lists.
Whether failure to publish shortlisted candidates and invite public comments violated the Constitution
No violation; the requirement to publish names of applicants and shortlists is not provided in the AFA Act
The court held that demanding all public bodies publish lists of applicants and nominees would be cumbersome and expensive; it suffices to advertise in the public domain and allow any aggrieved applicant to seek interview scores. The petitioner showed no interest as an applicant and no prejudice from non-publication.
Whether the AFA Board's composition violated Section 94 of the Consumer Protection Act
No violation; the later-enacted AFA Act prevails and governs board composition exclusively
Applying the rule of statutory construction that a later Act repeals or amends an earlier one (citing Aburili J in Simon Kariithi and Mativo J in R v Kenya School of Law), the court held the AFA Act (2013) overrides the Consumer Protection Act (2012); Parliament, had it intended mandatory consumer representation on the AFA Board, would have expressly said so in Section 5.
Legal principles established
#- Where two statutes conflict, the later statute is deemed to have amended or overridden the earlier one; the AFA Act (2013) prevails over the Consumer Protection Act (2012)
- Section 94 of the Consumer Protection Act requires appointing authorities to have due regard to accredited consumer organizations but does not mandate direct appointment of a consumer representative; a party must show an accredited consumer organization was denied participation
- The burden of proof lies on the party alleging unconstitutionality; mere appointment does not prove illegality
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall meet its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction (Articles 10, 22, 232 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010) - invoked via petition
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Consumers Federation of Kenya (COFEK) (Suing Through Ephraim Kanake, Stephen Mutoro and Henry Ochieng) v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock Development & 3 others; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & 9 others (Interested Parties) (Petition E126 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 208 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/208/eng@2025-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.