By BOB WASWANI
February 20, 2026| A former nominated member of the Kakamega County Assembly is seeking court orders that could fundamentally alter how Kenya treats its nominated politicians, demanding equal treatment with elected MCAs in access to office space, staff, mortgages and operational funds.
Anne Wesonga Nambiro, who served as a nominated MCA from August 2017 to August 2022, has petitioned the High Court in Kakamega to declare that nominated and elected members of county assemblies have equal status and are entitled to equal opportunities, responsibilities and privileges.
The case, if determined in her favour, would set a precedent affecting hundreds of nominated MCAs across all 47 counties, potentially forcing county governments to extend full benefits to lawmakers who are appointed rather than elected.
According to court documents, Nambiro is seeking multiple declarations from the court, including that the respondents contravened and infringed upon her rights under Articles 27 (equality and freedom from discrimination), 40 (protection of property), 41 (fair labour practices), 47 (fair administrative action) and 232 (values and principles of public service) of the Constitution.
She specifically wants Section 12 of the Kakamega County Assembly Service Act, 2015 — which she argues provides for differential treatment between elected and nominated members — declared “erroneous, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.”
The petitioner further seeks a declaration that the Kakamega County Assembly Service Act, 2015, contravenes Article 199(1) of the Constitution for want of publication in the Kenya Gazette, and that it is unconstitutional, null and void. She also wants the court to declare that the County Assembly Services Act No. 24 of 2017 should prevail over the Kakamega County Assembly Service Act, 2015.
Beyond declarations, Nambiro is seeking a mandatory injunction compelling the respondents to reimburse the funds she spent on salaries, office rent, and office operation and maintenance costs during her five-year term. She also seeks damages for violation, infringement and denial of her constitutional rights, plus costs and interest.
The detailed breakdown of her financial claims paints a stark picture of what she describes as discriminatory treatment:
“I was forced to pay for rent for my office for the entire term at Ksh. 10,000/= per month totaling Ksh. 600,000/=” the petitioner states in her pleadings.
She further avers that for the first four years of her term, she was forced to pay the salary for her Office Assistant/watchman at the rate of Ksh. 12,500/= per month totalling Ksh. 600,000/=. For the first two years of her term, she paid her Secretary’s salary at Ksh. 14,000/= per month totalling Ksh. 336,000/=.
The petitioner also states she paid her Personal Assistant’s salary for the first year of her term at Ksh. 19,500/= per month totalling Ksh. 234,000/=. For the entire 60-month term, she did not receive any sum for monthly office operations and “had to use my own sum of Ksh. 3,000,000/= for the same.”
Additionally, Nambiro claims the 1st Respondent gave her a mortgage of Ksh. 2,000,000/= instead of the stipulated Ksh. 3,000,000/=.
The petitioner contends that the 1st Respondent, charged with disbursement of the mortgage, failed to do so “in unclear circumstances riddled with unequal treatment and discrimination.”
She argues that as a nominated member of the county assembly, she was entitled to provision of office rent or space, office staff and office operation costs.
The respondents — the Kakamega County Assembly Service Board and the County Assembly of Kakamega — opposed the petition through a replying affidavit sworn by Esther A. Ariko, the Clerk to the Assembly and Chief Executive Officer of the Service Board, denying any discriminatory treatment and describing the claim as “baseless, frivolous, vexatious and scandalous.”
They raised a preliminary objection arguing that the relationship between the petitioner and respondents was that of employer-employee, and therefore jurisdiction lies with the Employment and Labour Relations Court rather than the High Court.
In her response, Nambiro submitted that by virtue of Section 9(2)(b) of the County Governments Act, she was not and cannot be considered to be an employee of the respondents. She cited the case of Catherine Kamau & 9 others v. Speaker of the County Assembly of Nakuru, Clerk Nakuru County Assembly & another [2021] eKLR, arguing that her petition does not concern employment and labour relations.
Relying on County Government of Kakamega & 4 others v. Omweno & 12 others [2025] KECA 190 (KLR), she maintained that the High Court is seized with jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition.
In a ruling delivered on February 5, 2026, Justice A.C. Bett dismissed the respondents’ preliminary objection, finding that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.
“The petitioner’s prayers fall within the purview of Article 165(3) of the Constitution as they seek declarations that fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the High Court,” the judge ruled. “The petition involves the interpretation of the constitutional provisions regarding non-discrimination, the right to property, the exercise of public power by the County Assembly, and the enforcement of fundamental rights and freedom of a state officer.”
The judge also addressed the employment relationship question, stating: “The petitioner is not an employee of the respondents. Her services were not retained by the respondent. She only works with the respondents in discharge of her mandate as the people’s representative.”
With the jurisdictional hurdle cleared, the petition is now set to proceed to full hearing, where the substantive issues of discrimination and equal treatment of nominated MCAs will be determined. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for county governance and the status of nominated lawmakers nationwide.