To verify the grave allegations above, the petitioner wrote and hand-delivered a letter to the respondent on 11th April 2017, requesting that, within seven (7) days of the date of the letter, that is by 18th April 2017, the respondent provides the following documents without fail:
The Job Descriptions developed with the advice and help of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC);
The Commission minutes and all deliberations by the Commission which approved the current migration exercise;
The studies by consultants’ (PKF and KPMG) which informed the formulation of the current organisation structure;
A list of the jobs advertised, the job descriptions, and the communication formulae used to advertise;
Existing job descriptions, that is, the job descriptions of the people already in the organisation’s establishment;
The vacant positions targeted for promotion which have not been advertised and those yet to be advertised..
Vide a letter dated 13th April 2017, and mislabelled as “Without Prejudice” the respondent informed the petitioner that some of the information sought was confidential and could not be released. The respondent replied to the respondent’s letter vide his of 19th April 2017, wherein he stated that the information and documents he required from the respondent were not confidential and cannot disclose any secrets or confidential information about the Commission or its employees. The petitioner stated further that if by close of day on Thursday, 20th April 2017, the respondent still won’t release the information and documentation as requested, he would be left with no option but to move the Court on Friday 21st April 2017, for orders compelling the respondent to release the same.
The new deadline passed without the respondent availing the information sought by the petitioner.
The respondent’s decision to lock out or deny qualified Kenyans the opportunity to compete on merit, by preparing and fronting cronies to take over the positions in the respondent, which is a very strategic government agency, is untenable under the law and must be stopped by this Court enforcing the law.
RELIEFS SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER
REASONS WHEREFORE Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays for:
- A DECLARATION THAT the respondent is bound by Articles 1, 2, 3(1), 10(2)(a)&(c), 73, 75(1), 1, 2, 3(1), 10(1)&(2)(a)&(c), 27, 41(1), 47, 73, 75(1), and 232(1) (a),(d),(e),(f)&(2)(b) and 259(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 in respect of staff migration and employees’ promotion.
- A DECLARATION THAT filling the vacancies through favouritism contravenes Articles 1, 2, 3(1), 10(2)(a)&(c), 73, 75(1), 1, 2, 3(1), 10(1)&(2)(a)&(c), 27, 41(1), 47, 73, 75(1), and 232(1) (a),(d),(e),(f)&(2)(b) and 259(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and is unreasonable and unlawful and, therefore unconstitutional null and void ab initio.
- A DECLARATION THAT staff migration and employees’ promotion exercise must be conducted in accordance with the job descriptions and organisation structure approved by the respondent.
- AN ORDER QUASHING the impugned staff migration and employees’ promotion exercise.
- AN ORDER QUASHING the following documents:
- The document circulated to staff by email on Friday, 3rd March 2017, by Elizabeth Njau, containing an advertisement announcing internal vacancies; and
- The document circulated to staff by email on Monday, 6th March 2017, by Elizabeth Njau, stating that the Commission had “made a change in the Economic Regulation department.”
- AN ORDER THAT the respondent conducts the staff migration and employees’ promotion exercise in accordance with the job descriptions and organisation structure, and appoints persons to fill vacancies through a process that is competitive, merit based and inclusive as required in law.
- AN ORDER THAT the respondent appoints a substantive holder of the position of Director of Petroleum Department.
- AN ORDER THAT the costs of this suit be provided.
- Any other relief the court may deem just to grant.
- << Prev