By BOB WASWANI
March 28, 2026| The Employment and Labour Relations Court sitting in Kakamega has dismissed a petition challenging the recruitment and intended appointment of an Assistant Chief for Shiyunzu Sub-Location in Kakamega County, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the constitutional threshold required to overturn a public recruitment process.
In a judgment delivered on May 14, 2026, Justice David Nderitu held that the petition filed by Evans Shimonyo Shipwondo lacked sufficient evidence to prove violations of constitutional provisions, including transparency, accountability, and access to information under Articles 10, 35, and 73 of the Constitution.
Shipwondo had moved to court seeking orders of certiorari to quash the alleged appointment of Elishama Afubwa as Assistant Chief, mandamus compelling disclosure of recruitment records, and general damages. He also alleged that the recruitment process was opaque, irregular, and conducted without public disclosure of interview outcomes.
He further claimed that his verbal requests for documents such as the list of applicants, interview score sheets, and evaluation reports were declined by the Deputy County Commissioner and other officials, amounting to a violation of his constitutional right to access information.
The petitioner argued that the process lacked transparency, eroding public trust in the recruitment of local administrators. He contended that the failure to publish interview results months after the exercise raised suspicion of irregularity and possible unlawful appointment.
However, the 1st to 3rd respondents—comprising the Deputy County Commissioner, the Principal Secretary for Interior, and the Attorney General—maintained that the recruitment was conducted lawfully, competitively, and in accordance with public service procedures. They told the court that the vacancy was publicly advertised on January 8, 2024, attracting 20 applicants, out of which 12 were shortlisted and interviewed.
According to their evidence, the interviews were conducted on July 4, 2024, by a panel including senior county and administrative officials. The 4th respondent emerged the top candidate with a score of 60.8 per cent, followed by other candidates who scored lower. The court was further told that his appointment was subject to verification of academic credentials, which was still ongoing at the time of the proceedings.
The respondents also challenged the petitioner’s reliance on a verbal request for information, arguing that the Access to Information Act requires applications to be made in writing. They further stated that the petitioner had not exhausted the available dispute resolution mechanisms, including lodging a complaint with the Commission on Administrative Justice.
Justice Nderitu agreed with the respondents, holding that the petition was premature and failed to follow established legal procedures for accessing information. The court also found that the petitioner did not demonstrate illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the recruitment process to justify judicial intervention.
On the claim for certiorari and mandamus, the judge ruled that no statutory duty had been shown to have been violated or refused, and that suspicion or dissatisfaction with an administrative outcome was insufficient grounds to quash a public appointment.
“The allegations raised remain largely speculative and are not supported by material evidence capable of establishing that the decision was unlawful or procedurally flawed,” the court held.
Consequently, the court dismissed the petition in its entirety, but made no order as to costs.