Republic v Board of Directors, Agriculture & Food Authority & 3 others; Gikonyo (Nuts and Oil Crops Directorate & 6 others (Interested Parties); Kiume (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E027 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 482 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court quashed the Agriculture and Food Authority's 2024 staff restructuring policy because it was never approved by the Public Service Commission.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Organisational Structure, Grading and Staff Establishment Policy for the Agriculture and Food Authority, April 2024 could validly be made and implemented without the approval of the Public Service Commission
- 2.Whether section 11 of the Agriculture and Food Authority Act vests in the Authority an autonomous power to establish and abolish offices in exclusion of the Public Service Commission
- 3.Whether the ex-parte applicant established disobedience of the stay order granted on 27.05.2024 in the contempt application
Key legal issues
#Validity of the impugned human resource instruments absent Public Service Commission approval
The instruments were invalid and unlawful because they did not receive the approval of the Public Service Commission, whose constitutional mandate under Article 234(2) covers establishment and abolition of offices in the public service
The Court found that the Authority and its Board were bound by the Commission's constitutional mandate as amplified by the Public Service Commission Act, 2017, its regulations and instructions. The claim of internal executive autonomy was misconceived because section 11(1) of the Agriculture and Food Authority Act requires implementation in accordance with 'any other Act of Parliament', which includes the Public Service Commission Act. Absent the Commission's approval, the instruments could not be valid.
Scope of section 11 of the Agriculture and Food Authority Act
Section 11 does not vest the Authority with power to create and abolish offices; its functions must be exercised harmoniously with the Commission's mandate under Articles 10, 232 and 234 of the Constitution
The Court observed that section 11 is 'capable of being implemented within the constitutional mandate' of the Public Service Commission, and that the Commission's functions under Article 234(2), including ensuring an efficient public service and monitoring personnel practices, are wide. The Authority could not validly undertake its section 11 roles in exclusion of the Commission, and all respondents were urged to devise harmonious working channels.
Contempt of the stay order of 27.05.2024
The contempt application failed because disobedience of the stay order was not proved
The applicant neither alleged nor showed the material respects in which the stay order was disobeyed. The order related to implementation of the impugned instruments only and did not bar the making of new instruments in accordance with the law. Disobedience having not been proved, the application was dismissed as unfounded.
Legal principles established
#- Human resource instruments of a state corporation, including organisational structures and staff establishment, require the approval of the Public Service Commission under Article 234 of the Constitution and the Public Service Commission Act, 2017 before implementation
- Section 11 of the Agriculture and Food Authority Act does not vest in the Authority the power to create and abolish offices
Court orders
#- 1.Judicial review order of Certiorari removing into the court and quashing the Organisational Structure, Grading and Staff Establishment Policy for the Agriculture and Food Authority, April 2024 issued by the 1st Respondent upon the recommendation of the 3rd Respondent
- 2.Judicial review order of Prohibition restricting or preventing the 1st Respondent from implementing the said Policy
- 3.Dismissal of the contempt application dated 29.08.2024
- 4.Each party to bear own costs of the entire proceedings
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 8 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015; Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act; Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Rule 7(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Relief refused
#Application for contempt dated 29.08.2024 against Dr. Bruno Linyiru, Ms. Imelda Koskei, Wambua Musee, Dr Paul Ronoh and Ms. Emma Wairimu
Disobedience of the stay order was not alleged and shown in material respects; the order stayed implementation of the impugned instruments but did not bar making of new lawful instruments
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the entire proceedings.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Court returns that the reliefs prayed for will issue accordingly.
The Judicial review order in the nature of Certiorari hereby issued to remove into the Honourable Court and quashing forthwith, the Organisational Structure, Grading and Stafi Establishment Policy for the Agriculture and Food Authority, April 2024 issued by the 1st Respondent upon the recommendation of the 3rd Respondent.
The judicial review order in the nature of Prohibition hereby issued restricting or preventing the 1st Respondent from implementing the Organisational Structure, Grading and Stafi Establishment Policy for the Agriculture and Food Authority, April 2024
The contempt application herein is dismissed.
Each party to bear own costs of the entire proceedings.
Without compliance with the provisions of the Public Service Commission Act 2017, it cannot be said that the Actions by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents effectively made the impugned instruments valid and lawful.
Issues in the judgment
#Statute-citation drafting errors in the applicant's grounds: section 11 described as 'Section 11 of the Agriculture and Food Authority Act, 2013 (the Act) requires the Agriculture and Food Authority to organise its Secretariat into Directorates and to include a Directorate of Food Production' versus the 1st respondent's quote of section 11(1) which vests that power in the Authority 'with the approval of the Cabinet Secretary'
The 1st respondent's affidavit inconsistently describes the impugned instruments as both an internal executive matter and subject to approval by the Cabinet Secretary, Public Service Commission and State Corporations Advisory Committee
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Board of Directors, Agriculture & Food Authority & 3 others; Gikonyo (Nuts and Oil Crops Directorate & 6 others (Interested Parties); Kiume (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E027 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 482 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Judicial Review Application (Nairobi), notice of motion dated 28.05.2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/482/eng@2025-02-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.