By Anderson Ojwang
Trouble could be brewing at the Country’s national broadcasting, Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC) after it emerged that the Managing Director could have been in office illegally and the Board may disregard the Court, and the Board may be in contempt of the Court.
In June 2024, in a ruling by Nakuru High Court Judge Justice Muhochi Samwel Mukira gave a conservatory order which barred Chief Executive Officers and Managing Directors listed in the petition from assuming office until the case was finalized.
KBC Managing Director Agnes Kelekye Nguna was one of those listed in the petition but in November 2024, the Board of Directors appointed her to the post in total disregard to the ruling.
Similarly, the Board approved five months payments for her delayed assumption of office, which is yet to be affected after Audit queries were raised on the issue.
And now the appointment has raised both the audit and legal queries at the Corporation, with the Board, members reading from a different script over the matter.
Interestingly, the appeal against the conservatory order issued by the Nakuru High Court has also been dismissed by the Appeal Court in a ruling delivered on 23rd May 2025 by Judges Justice M Gachoka,, Justice W. Korir and Justice J. Mativo.
“There is no doubt that the high court had the requisite jurisdiction to issue the conservatory orders.
It has not demonstrated to to our satisfaction how the learned judges exercised his his discretion or misdirected himself in law.
We find that the appellants and the respondents in support of the appeals did not demonstrate how the learned judge in exercise of his misapprehended the facts.
The appellants failed to demonstrate that the learned judge took into account irrelevant matters or failed to take account of relevant considerations.
Lastly, it was not demonstrated that the learned judge’s exercise of his discretion, is plainly wrong.
Having arrived at the above findings, the inevitable conclusion is that these consolidated appeals are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed since this is a matter of public interest, the parties will bear their own costs,” they ruled.
In one of the recent Internal Communication to the Managing Director, the status of her position and the emerging legal issues.
In the communication seen by the writer read in parts “Compensation for the managing director due to delayed assumption of office.
While approved by the Board, it has emerged that critical legal and procedural facts were not fully disclosed, including:
The appointment of KBC MD among others, was contested in court of law, hence the MD’S reporting was delayed by slightly over 5 months.
Can the legal department advise whether there was a ruling clearing the KBCMD to assume office in November 2024.
Further to the above, can the legal department advice on the implication of the court of appeal ruling on the MD’S position in the Corporation.
There was an acting Md who was being paid on the same position.
It is not clear on which basis the Board recommended a one of gross emoluments budget based on the current renumeration of the KBCMD.
Given these legal complexities, I recommend that this matter be deferred pending a formal legal opinion from the legal department, supported by precedents from Public Service Commission and, if needed, the Attorney General office,” it read in parts.
The MD when contacted for comment referred us to the Attorney General office.
“Refer this to the AG’’s office who is representing KBC in this suit” she wrote.
But interestingly, a letter by a law firm of Nyameta, Mogaka and Magiya Company advocates addressed to the Managing Director, Kenya Broadcasting Corporation captioned: Re Brief on court of appeal matters.
“The judgement on the above matter was delivered 23rd May 2025.
The court dismissed the appeals without costs since it is a public interest matter.
This means that we have to go back to the high court and take directions of the court however, as you may recall, the matter was pending judgement before the high court and therefore it’s likely that once the mention date is fixed the court will fix a new date for judgement,” it read in parts.
From the above, the emerging issues is that did the board act in defiance of the court and was in total contempt to appoint the Managing Director?
Has the Managing Director been in the office illegally and if so, why did the board disregard or fail to seek legal opinion from the legal department and the attorney general office?
Why did the Board approve payment for delayed assumption of office when the court had given a conservatory order and who failed to disclose the true status of the MD position and why?
EDITED BY: HOPE BARBRA
