Meru University of Science and Technology suffered a major blow on February 16 after a court nullified the appointment of Human Resource Manager and Corporation Secretary/Head of Legal Affairs at the institution.
The university’s Vice Chancellor had on January 18, 2023 recruited two officers to the said positions, prompting David Njoe Kithuka’s move of filing a lawsuit at the High Court claiming the appointment as invalid, null and void.
While quashing the appointment, Justice Onesmus Makau stated that the institution had failed to uphold the rule of law, the constitution, and protecting public interest.
“In view of the matters above matters, I am satisfied that the impugned recruitment and appointment of the two officers was done contrary to the national values and principles of governance and public service as enshrined under Article 10 and 232 of the Constitution.”
“It was also done contrary to the principles of leadership and integrity as enshrined under Article 73 read with Article 80 of the Constitution. Since the said appointments were inconsistent with the Constitution, then the same were unconstitutional, null and void ab initio,” said Judge Makau
Kithuka argued that the appointments, approved by Meru University’s Council on January 16, 2023, were conducted secretly by the Vice Chancellor without proper advertisement, internal or external, and without conducting interviews.
According to the petitioner, this clandestine process violated the legal requirements for a competitive and transparent recruitment process.
He argued that the Vice Chancellor failed to declare the vacancies to the Council as per the HR Manual, and that external recruitment should only occur if internal advertisements for Job Grade 2 to 13 positions did not yield suitable candidates.
He argued that such actions by the Vice Chancellor raised integrity concerns and went against constitutional Articles 10 and 73, the Mwongozo for state Corporations (January 2015), and the university’s Human Resource Policy.
The lack of transparency is said to have undermined core values such as integrity, equity, transparency, and competitiveness.
Furthermore, Kithuka claimed he had the right to sue based on the preamble and Articles 258 of the Constitution, alleging that the court had jurisdiction to hear disputes related to rights violations and constitutional protection.
The university through a sworn affidavit dated February 22, 2023 by the Vice Chancellor Romanus Odhiambo said that they followed rules by getting approval to hire for the important roles during a staff recruitment freeze.
They argued that the one-year contract was allowed because the Vice-Chancellor had the power to make urgent appointments.
“The respondent contended that it sought approval to fill the positions of Human Resource Manager and the Corporation Secretary/ Head of Legal Affairs which are critical senior positions, but the same was yet to be given. As such, the University Council in its 54th full council meeting held on January 13,2023 decided to fill the position, on a one-year contract basis pending the approval of the HR Instruments and the Head of Public Service Approval.”
“The said resolution was anchored on the University Statutes Provisions, more so schedule III 2(d) which empowers the Vice Chancellor (VC) to make temporary appointments to Academic and Administrative posts for renewable Contractual period not exceeding one year,” he argued.
Further, they claimed there were no qualified internal candidates, and the HR Manager position was already filled when the petition was filed.
They asked the court to dismiss the petition, calling it an abuse of the legal process.
Justice Makau took into consideration several issues in determining the petition.
Whether the petitioner had the right to file the petition, if the appointments adhered to proper recruitment procedures, whether there was a violation of constitutional provisions in the appointments, and if the relief sought by the petitioner should be granted.
The court concluded that the petitioner acted in good faith rightfully challenged the appointments which it found to be personalized and lacking transparency.
Despite the University Council and Vice Chancellor’s authority, the appointments breached constitutional standards.
“The court recognizes the power by the University Council to hire and fire staff under the Universities Act and respondent’s statutes. I also recognize the power by the vice chancellor under Schedule III (2) (d) of the respondent’s statutes to appoint employees on temporary basis. However, this power is subject to the Constitution,” Justice Makau ruled.
Consequently, the court declared the appointments invalid and nullified them, stressing the respondent’s failure to uphold the rule of law.
No costs were imposed due to the public nature of the case.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
