By Anderson Ojwang

The Commission on Administrative Justice (Ombudsman) has recommended that the Kenya Institute of Primate Research (KIPRE) Board, in consultation with the line Cabinet Secretary, revoke the appointment of the Director General, Dr Peter Gichuhi.

The commission also recommended that the post be advertised within fourteen days from the date of receipt of this decision in compliance with the law.

The Commission also recommended that the KIPRE Board recruits a qualified Corporation Secretary in line with the statutory requirements and ensures alignment of all future recruitment processes and staff roles with the guiding legal framework.

“That the Inspector-General (Corporations), as mandated under Section 18 and 19 of the State Corporations Act, immediately carry out investigations and advise the Auditor General on the amount to be surcharged for any loss caused due to any negligence or misconduct so established,” the Commission said.

The Ombudsman also wanted the Public Service Commission and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission to submit the results of their investigations within sixty (60) days of receipt of this Determination.

Allegations

Following a complaint filed with the Commission by an anonymous complainant on 6th August 2024 against the Board of the Kenya Institute of Primate Research (KIPRE), formerly the Institute of Primate Research (IPR), alleging irregularities in the appointment of Dr Peter Gichuhi Mwethera as the Director General and Chief Executive Officer of KIPRE on 1st July 2024.

The complainant alleged that Dr Mwethera was first appointed in an acting capacity as the Director of the Institute of Primate Research on 16th July 2021 for a period of three years, which ended on 15th July 2024.

That just before the end of the initial contract, Dr Peter Gichuhi was appointed as the Director General of KIPRE on 1st July 2024, which appointment would result in him receiving a double salary and attendant benefits for the month of July 2024.

That the recruitment was unlawful as Dr Peter Gichuhi had attained the mandatory retirement age of 60 years before the appointment was done, as his Birth Certificate indicates his year of birth as 10th April 1964, meaning that he attained 60 years on 10th April 2024.

That the recruitment process was flawed as it was concluded after receiving and considering only two applications, without extension of the advertisement period or re-advertisement of the vacancy in light of the limited response.

That the vacancy for the Director General position was advertised solely on the MyGov platform and not in any other media or publication.

That there was an alleged irregular promotion of Ms Lucyline Mbogori to perform the duties of a Corporation Secretary without a formal appointment.

The complainant sought to have the matter investigated and appropriate remedial action taken in accordance with the law.

Action

The Commission initiated an inquiry with the Ministry of Health via a letter dated 6th August 2024 and a reminder dated 23rd September 2024, as well as with the Public Service Commission via letter dated 4th November 2024 and a reminder dated 16th January 2025.

The Commission received a response from the PS, State Department for Public Health and Professional Standards, via letter Ref: SDPH&PS. BOARDS/13/1/VOLII/31 dated 24th October 2024.

Response

That Dr Peter Gichuhi was initially appointed as the substantive Director of the Institute of Primate Research (IPR), formerly a Directorate of the National Museums of Kenya, by the National Museums of Kenya Board of Directors with effect from 16th July 2021 for a period of three years contract renewable on mutual agreement by both parties, and not as Acting Director General.

That due to the increased mandate of the Institute of Primate Research (IPR), it was transitioned from the National Museums of Kenya to the Kenya Institute of Primate Research (KIPRE) through Executive Order No. 2 of 2023, under the Ministry of Health, State Department for Public Health and Professional Standards.

That to operationalise KIPRE, the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Health appointed a Board of Directors which held its inaugural meeting on 8th December 2023, wherein the Board in consultation with the Ministry appointed Dr Peter Gichuhi as the DG and CEO in acting capacity with effect from 1st July 2024 to operationalise the KIPRE Institute in anticipation of the lapse of his previous contract on 15th July 2024.

That Dr Peter Gichuhi is a Research Scientist and, according to PSC Circular Ref: PSC/ADM/13(7) of 19th November 2020 and the approved KIPRE Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual, the retirement age for Research Scientists is 65 years.

That the retirement of CEOs is based on the Head of Public Service Circular Ref: No. OP/CAB.9/1A dated 27th February 2018 and Ref: No. PSC/ADM/13(41) of 4th April 2023, pegging the retirement in respect of CEOs of State Corporations to the legislation of Mwongozo, the Code of Governance for State Corporations, subject to satisfactory evaluation by the Board as a guiding principle, and that the PSC Act on mandatory retirement age shall not apply.

That the Institute advertised the position of the DG based on the approved Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual and Career Guidelines via the KIPRE website and MyGov. The Government, via Circular No. OP/CAB 58/4A of February 2017, directed the Accounting Officers to channel all their advertisements through MyGov, which is a wide-circulating platform.

The Commission received another response from the Chairperson of the KIPRE Board via letter reference KIPRE/BOD/ADMIN/DG/007/2024 dated 14th October 2024, which reiterated the response from the PS.

That as per the KIPRE Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual, the retirement age for research scientists is 65 years and not 60 years, and therefore Dr Peter Gichuhi was qualified for appointment as he had not attained 65 years.

That Dr Peter Gichuhi was appointed as acting DG and CEO on 1st July 2024 pursuant to a consultative process between the Ministry of Health under a Concurrence letter Ref: MOH/ADM/VOL III/187 dated 11th June 2024, approval of KIPRE Human Resource Instruments by the State Corporations Advisory Committee (SCAC) and the Public Service Commission. That he did not receive a double salary for the month of July 2024; he received only one salary.

Determination

The Commission, having analysed the complaint, response and supporting documents, resolved:

• That the advertisement for the position of DG of KIPRE met the required threshold.
• That the recruitment to the position of DG for KIPRE was irregular.
• That the promotion of Ms Lucyline Mbogori to undertake corporation duties was irregular.

By Habil Onyango

The judgment in a case which stopped the swearing-in of the appointed Homa Bay Deputy Governor Danish Onyango alongside two other Executive Committee Members is set for Thursday, July 30, 2026, at the Kisumu Employment and Labour Court.

This is after the Interface Community Help Desk, a local community-based organisation, filed a case in the Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya in Kisumu, which halted the swearing-in of the appointees. Currently, they serve in an acting capacity.

The petition was filed before Judge Nzioki wa Makau by Michael Kojo Otieno and Evance Otieno Oloo Gor as the first and second petitioners, respectively, against the Homa Bay County Governor, the County Assembly of Homa Bay, the Clerk of the County Assembly, and the County Attorney as the first through fourth respondents.

In February 2026, former Homa Bay Deputy Governor Joseph Oyugi Magwanga resigned, a matter which paved the way for the appointment of Onyango.

On March 24, 2026, County Governor Gladys Wanga appointed the acting DG as the new Deputy Governor, along with other positions in a minor reshuffle. Isaac Victor Ongiri was appointed to serve as the Executive Committee Member for Governance, Administration, Communication, and Devolution, while Elijah Dede took on the Trade, Industry, Tourism, Marketing, and Cooperative Development docket.

Professor Elijah Munga and nine others were listed as interested parties.

The petitioners claimed that the county assembly and governor failed to implement the constitutional principle that no more than two-thirds of the members of elective or appointive bodies shall be of the same gender, in violation of Articles 27(8) and 179(3)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.

They also raised issues regarding violations of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, 2015, the Public Appointments (County Assembly Approval) Act, and the County Governments Act.

According to court documents, the petitioners initiated the matter with a petition dated March 25, 2026, challenging the nomination and appointment process of the Homa Bay County Executive Committee Members. Their grievance was that the list of nominees published in the Daily Nation and The Standard newspapers on March 20, 2026, violated Article 27(8) of the Constitution by failing to comply with the two-thirds gender rule.

They concurrently filed an application under certificate of urgency, seeking to halt the vetting process pending the hearing and determination of both the application and the petition.

“Upon ex-parte consideration of the application in chambers on March 30, 2026, this Court issued orders staying the vetting and approval of the nominees advertised in the notice dated March 20, 2026, pending the inter partes hearing of the application,” noted the judge.

“The issuance of this order prompted the filing of the application presently before the Court on March 30, 2026, by the first and fifth respondents,” he added.

The application rests on grounds outlined in its face and is supported by affidavits from Mr Benard Muok, Mr Elijah Obiny, Mr Danish Onyango, and Mr Isaac Victor Ongiri.

According to the documents, the applicants contended that the ex-parte orders were obtained through material non-disclosure, misrepresentation of facts, and erroneous application of the law. They argued that the petitioners failed to disclose that the nomination process for the Deputy Governor had significantly progressed and that the nominee had already been cleared by the IEBC, meaning any challenge should have been brought only through an election petition.

Additionally, they asserted that the petitioners did not mention that the vetting of the other nominees had already been conducted before the County Assembly without objections.

The applicants maintained that the approval process was governed by strict statutory timelines under Section 9(1) of the Public Appointments (County Assemblies Approval) Act, 2017, and argued that the petitioners should have lodged objections under Section 7(10) of the same Act before approaching the court.

The applicants urged the court to vacate the ex-parte orders, as their continued existence disrupts a time-bound constitutional process, creates administrative uncertainty, and endangers service delivery within Homa Bay.

Furthermore, they contended that the application had since been overtaken by events. In response, the petitioners filed a replying affidavit sworn on May 11, 2026, by the first petitioner. They argued that the interim orders were properly issued since, at the time the application was filed, the vetting and approval process had not yet concluded.

The petitioners argue that the vetting and approval report was neither presented to the County Assembly nor debated and adopted, leaving the process incomplete. They assert that the orders issued were necessary because the 2nd and 3rd respondents acted in violation of sections 7(4) and 7(5) of the Public Appointments (County Assemblies Approval) Act.

They contend that the Court properly exercised its discretion after considering the arguments presented, the remedies sought, and the applicable legal principles, asserting that there is no valid reason to overturn the orders. The petitioners urge the Court to uphold the orders in the interest of justice.

According to the judge, “Oral submissions were made on behalf of the 1st and 5th Respondents, while the Petitioners submitted written arguments.”

The 1st and 5th Respondents claim that the Petitioners failed to disclose that the nomination and vetting process had been completed. They maintain that the nomination process began on March 15, 2026, that the candidates were approved by the Political Parties Tribunal, and that they were subsequently gazetted on March 23 and March 25, 2026. They assert that the nominees were vetted by the County Assembly on March 25, 2026, thereby concluding the vetting and nomination process.

The judge noted, “With the aforementioned process already concluded, they argue that only the submission of the County Assembly report remains outstanding.”

Conversely, the petitioners argue that during the recommendation for the appointment of the County Executive Committee Members and the Deputy Governor, Homa Bay County did not meet the mandatory requirements and thresholds established by the Constitution, prompting the issuance of ex-parte orders.

The 1st and 5th Respondents seek orders to set aside, vacate, or vary the previous orders, along with costs associated with the application.

The Judge recognised that serious constitutional issues were raised regarding Article 27 of the Constitution of Kenya and decided to maintain the orders to allow for the thorough examination of these issues.

Judge Makau, in an order dated May 25, 2026, in Kisumu, confirmed the orders issued on March 30, 2026, which will remain in effect until the hearing and determination of the Petition. He dismissed the application from the Respondents and indicated that costs would follow the event, noting that further directions regarding the resolution of the Petition will follow the ruling.

By Habil Onyango

The Oyugis Magistrates’ Court has awarded Ksh1 million to Richard Ochieng Bonyo, a plaintiff in a defamation case against the County Government of Homa Bay.

Bonyo had initially requested general damages in the range of Ksh8 million to Ksh10 million.

He also sued the Homa Bay County Secretary, who serves as the Head of Public Service, as well as the Chief Executive Officer of the Homa Bay County Public Service Board, naming them as the second and third defendants, respectively.

The ruling was issued by Resident Magistrate Hon. Cynthia Chepkoech in a judgment dated July 24, 2026, and was delivered at Oyugis.

In his court complaint dated June 7, 2024, the plaintiff sought damages, injunctive relief, and an apology from the defendants for defamation.

According to court documents, the plaintiff asserted that the suit arose from a letter dated May 23, 2024, authored by the Acting Chief Executive Officer/Secretary of the Homa Bay County Government. The letter was addressed to the County Secretary and Head of Public Service, and was sent to all authorised officers, including all Chief Officers and the Director of Human Resource Management and Development.

The letter was titled “Implementation of Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) Report Recommendations.” PwC had been contracted by the Homa Bay County Government to conduct a major payroll and personnel census audit.

The plaintiff contended that the letter contained false and malicious allegations against him, specifically labelling him as a “ghost worker,” defined as “staff who are on the payroll but do not seem to belong to any department nor know any of their colleagues.” He argued that these allegations were not only untrue but also intended to harm his reputation in the eyes of the public and relevant authorities. This was corroborated by the testimonies of the plaintiff’s wife and son, who noted that a relative had called, laughing after seeing the publication referring to the husband as a ghost worker.

In the ruling, it was stated that for a cause of action to exist, an alleged defamatory statement must be published to a third party.

“If the statement is made only to the person the letter is addressed to, this is insufficient for a defamation claim. However, if a defamatory statement is given to an intermediary, such as a clerk who can learn its contents, it is considered published to the clerk just as it would be to any other person,” noted the magistrate.

In evidence presented before the court, the first appellant testified that the letter was delivered to her workplace and was received from her colleagues; it was not in a sealed envelope. The second appellant testified that she received the letter from her employer’s office, and that any correspondence in that office must be reviewed by her boss, who had read the letter.

The plaintiff’s case relied on various testimonies, including his own and those of witnesses such as Charles Auma Modi (former County Director of Human Resources), Flavian Awino Ouma (the plaintiff’s wife), and John Collince Maxwell (the plaintiff’s son), along with documentary evidence, including screenshots demonstrating the viral spread of the disputed letter on social media.

The plaintiff maintained that he did not need to prove the exact manner in which he initially obtained the letter to establish publication or liability.

“What matters is that the letter was disseminated beyond its intended internal recipients and caused actual harm,” he stated.

The defendants, however, maintained that it was undisputed that the plaintiff’s appointment with the first defendant lasted from January 12, 2018, to September 30, 2022.

“In the plaintiff’s testimony, as reflected in the statement dated June 8, 2024, he did not address whether he handed over documents to his superiors or the relevant office when he left the first defendant’s employment,” ruled the magistrate.

The sole witness for the defendants, Ruth Aloo, testified on November 18, 2024, that the plaintiff did not hand over to the incoming officials or his superior when his term of duty ended on September 30, 2022. This explains why his name remained on the payroll for several years.

Aloo further explained that the payroll is simply a list of employees, and being on the list does not necessarily mean one is receiving a salary. She also confirmed that the plaintiff’s name has since been removed from the first defendant’s payroll.

From her testimony and the plain reading of the letter dated May 23, 2024, it was clear the defendants sought to determine from various officers and departmental heads of the first defendant why the plaintiff’s name appeared on the payroll and whether he was still employed there. She added that the letter dated May 23, 2024, was an internal document within the first defendant institution and was not intended for third parties.

“Indeed, there is no evidence that the plaintiff completed a proper handover when his term of employment ended on September 30, 2022,” the ruling noted.

In his testimony, the plaintiff stated that he had attended several interviews but was unable to secure employment due to the content of the publication. This situation has caused him significant emotional distress, stress, and mental anguish not only for himself but also for his entire family who depend on him.

“Based on the evidence presented, the court finds that the plaintiff has successfully proven the tort of defamation against the defendants to the required standard of proof,” ruled the magistrate.

In her ruling, Ms Chepkoech noted that the plaintiff’s claim succeeds to the extent of awarding general damages in the amount of Ksh1 million.

Furthermore, she issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, along with their agents, employees, servants, and anyone acting on their behalf, from further uttering, publishing, posting, or broadcasting any defamatory statements against the plaintiff on any media or platform.

She also issued a permanent injunction compelling the defendants, whether by themselves, their agents, employees, or anyone acting under their instructions, to immediately remove the plaintiff’s name from any impugned list and from any media platform that contains defamatory statements against him.

Additionally, the defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the suit and interest of Ksh1 million from the date of judgment.

By Valentine Omondi

Kenya and the United Kingdom have agreed to resume British military training in the country after resolving a standoff over the renewal of a bilateral defence cooperation agreement that had temporarily halted planned exercises.

The breakthrough preserves a decades-long military partnership between the two countries, following negotiations aimed at addressing concerns raised by Kenyan lawmakers over accountability and the conduct of British troops stationed under the British Army Training Unit Kenya (BATUK).

Welcoming the agreement, Foreign Affairs Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi said the renewed partnership reflects the strong ties between Nairobi and London.

“The partnership has been built over decades on mutual respect, constructive engagement, and a shared commitment to peace and security,” Mudavadi said.

The United Kingdom also welcomed the agreement, saying Kenya had issued the necessary approvals for military exercises to resume. In a statement, the UK government said it “highly values its relationship with Kenya, which is underpinned by mutual benefit, respect and cooperation.”

The resumption of training comes days after uncertainty over the future of the programme, with reports indicating that planned exercises had been suspended pending the renewal of the Defence Cooperation Agreement. The delay sparked speculation that Britain could relocate some of its military training activities to neighbouring Tanzania, although Kenyan authorities later confirmed that discussions between the two governments were ongoing.

Britain maintains approximately 200 military personnel in Kenya through BATUK and trains thousands of Kenyan and British troops each year. The partnership has also supported counter-terrorism operations and regional security efforts, particularly in the fight against the Somalia-based militant group al-Shabaab.

Despite its strategic importance, the defence partnership has faced growing public and political scrutiny in recent years.

One of the most contentious issues remains the 2012 murder of Agnes Wanjiru, a Kenyan woman whose body was found in a septic tank in Nanyuki after she was reportedly last seen with British soldiers. The case has drawn repeated calls for justice from Kenyan leaders and Wanjiru’s family.

The partnership also came under criticism following the 2021 Lolldaiga Conservancy wildfire, which was accidentally started during a British military exercise and destroyed thousands of acres of vegetation, raising concerns over environmental accountability.

The renewed agreement is expected to allow military training to continue while providing both governments with an opportunity to strengthen cooperation on accountability, environmental protection, and community relations around BATUK operations.

The Kenya-UK defence partnership remains one of Britain’s largest military training arrangements in Africa and continues to play a significant role in enhancing regional security cooperation between the two countries.

By Valentine Omondi

Questions over National Social Security Fund (NSSF) liabilities, unpaid staff dues, and inconsistencies in financial records dominated the appearance of Kisumu Governor Prof. Anyang’ Nyong’o before the Senate County Public Accounts Committee on Monday.

The committee raised concerns after discovering inconsistencies in the county’s financial statements, including changes to an NSSF liability estimated at about Sh500 million, prompting senators to question the accuracy of the documents presented for scrutiny.

Committee Chairperson Senator Moses Kajwang’ said the county’s financial statements had made the committee’s work more difficult because they continued to generate fresh questions instead of resolving audit issues.

“Your financial statements are generating a lot of issues and supplementary questions,” Kajwang’ told county officials, adding that several supporting notes had not been aged, making it impossible to establish the actual value and age of outstanding obligations.

The hearing further established that Kisumu County owes its employees approximately Sh1.3 billion in unpaid dues, forming part of the county’s Sh5.9 billion pending bills.

Senator Enoch Wambua questioned the county’s claim that it had already settled Sh1.9 billion under its payment plan, demanding a schedule identifying the creditors who had been paid and the amounts involved.

The county, however, was unable to immediately provide the committee with the requested records.

Earlier, county officials attributed the increase in pending bills to court judgments requiring immediate settlement of legal claims, inherited liabilities from previous administrations, and underperformance in local revenue collection.

Senator Tom Ojienda also questioned the sharp decline in key county revenue streams, citing parking fee collections that dropped from about Sh19 million to Sh113,000, and property rates that fell from about Sh20 million to Sh6 million.

Governor Nyong’o defended the county’s position, saying not all the liabilities had arisen under his administration.

“Some of these debts are historical and were inherited from previous regimes, while others are a consequence of national government policies,” the governor told the committee.

He pledged to act on the committee’s observations once the proceedings are formally communicated to the county.

“Once we get the report of discussions today, we’ll sit down and go through what has been discussed today and go to practical work on the questions that have been raised,” Nyong’o said.

The committee is expected to summon the county again after reviewing the additional documents requested during the hearing.