Waqo v Governor, Nairobi City County & 3 others (Petition E117 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2944 (KLR)

The petitioner proved he was nominated, vetted on 06.05.2024, that the sector committee never tabled its report within the statutory 21 sitting days, and that inquiries about the status went unanswered. The court found on a balance of probability that no report was prepared or tabled at all, amounting to abdication of a mandatory statutory and constitutional duty and a gross violation. The violation was confined to the failure to communicate and process the vetting, not to any promise of employment.

Relying on established principles of mandamus, the court held it cannot command a duty other than as imposed by statute. The statutory timelines for tabling and deliberating the report had long lapsed, there was no evidence the report existed, and the office of Chief Officer Housing and Urban Renewal was no longer vacant. Granting the order would command performance of a duty that had ceased to exist, placing it outside the legitimate scope of mandamus.

Guided by the Court of Appeal in Commission on Administrative Justice v Kenya Vision 2030 Delivery Board, the court held that a declaration alone does not vindicate rights and that constitutional remedies serve vindicatory and deterrent purposes. Lack of submissions on quantum did not bar the award. The court considered the strict liability attaching to breach of mandatory statutory timelines, the gross abdication of duty, the respondents' capacity, and the need to deter public bodies, awarding Kshs. 7,000,000.00 under its public law jurisdiction.

Their role of nominating had been performed and exhausted, but the petitioner also sought certiorari to quash any appointment or reassignment to the office and general damages against them. They were therefore necessary and proper parties for effectual and complete determination of the dispute, even if the claims could have been worded more precisely.