According to information gathered from early reports — including details our newsroom previously highlighted — the country’s top court ruled that it cannot interfere with proceedings that are still active before the High Court.
The decision was delivered on Thursday by a five-judge bench led by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, sitting alongside Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko.
The decision was delivered on Thursday by a five-judge bench led by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, sitting alongside Justices Mohammed Ibrahim, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko.
Their ruling now gives the High Court a free hand to deliver its judgment on whether the recruitment of the CEOs was lawful.
The dispute was triggered by a group of 77 applicants who challenged the appointment process at four public agencies: Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital (MTRH), Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC), Athi Water Works Development Agency, and the Kenya National Shipping Line.
The dispute was triggered by a group of 77 applicants who challenged the appointment process at four public agencies: Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital (MTRH), Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC), Athi Water Works Development Agency, and the Kenya National Shipping Line.
They argued that the entire process was irregular and should either be stopped or repeated.
However, MTRH and several co-applicants attempted to block the High Court from going ahead with the case.
However, MTRH and several co-applicants attempted to block the High Court from going ahead with the case.
They first went to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the High Court did not have jurisdiction and that the matter belonged in the Employment and Labour Relations Court. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed this argument.
After losing at the Court of Appeal, the applicants turned to the Supreme Court, hoping it would stop the High Court from issuing its judgment. They asked the judges to grant a stay of proceedings until their appeal was heard.
But the Supreme Court firmly rejected the request, saying its powers do not extend to interfering with a case that is still being handled by the High Court—especially when the Court of Appeal had not issued any orders requiring a stay.
The judges said the applicants were essentially asking the Supreme Court to overlook the Court of Appeal’s decision and take control of a matter that was not properly before them.
After losing at the Court of Appeal, the applicants turned to the Supreme Court, hoping it would stop the High Court from issuing its judgment. They asked the judges to grant a stay of proceedings until their appeal was heard.
But the Supreme Court firmly rejected the request, saying its powers do not extend to interfering with a case that is still being handled by the High Court—especially when the Court of Appeal had not issued any orders requiring a stay.
The judges said the applicants were essentially asking the Supreme Court to overlook the Court of Appeal’s decision and take control of a matter that was not properly before them.
The bench noted that the Supreme Court can only issue temporary orders concerning decisions made by the Court of Appeal, not ongoing matters in lower courts.
In its ruling, the court stated that the attempt to bypass the hierarchy of courts went against established legal principles.
In its ruling, the court stated that the attempt to bypass the hierarchy of courts went against established legal principles.
The judges found the application to be without merit and dismissed it, further directing the applicants to pay the legal costs of the case.
With the Supreme Court’s decision, attention now turns back to the High Court, which had already reserved its judgment pending the outcome of the appeal.
With the Supreme Court’s decision, attention now turns back to the High Court, which had already reserved its judgment pending the outcome of the appeal.
The ruling means the High Court is free to deliver its findings on whether the contested recruitment process should stand or be overturned.
The case has attracted wide public interest, especially because the positions involved are in key government institutions. MTRH is one of Kenya’s largest referral hospitals, KBC is a national broadcaster, Athi Water Works Development Agency manages major water projects, and the Kenya National Shipping Line plays a significant role in the maritime sector.
Legal analysts say the Supreme Court’s verdict reinforces the importance of respecting court hierarchy and preventing unnecessary interruptions in ongoing cases.
The case has attracted wide public interest, especially because the positions involved are in key government institutions. MTRH is one of Kenya’s largest referral hospitals, KBC is a national broadcaster, Athi Water Works Development Agency manages major water projects, and the Kenya National Shipping Line plays a significant role in the maritime sector.
Legal analysts say the Supreme Court’s verdict reinforces the importance of respecting court hierarchy and preventing unnecessary interruptions in ongoing cases.
They also argue that the ruling provides clarity on when and how the Supreme Court can issue temporary orders in matters involving public appointments.
0 Comments