The High Court has struck out a petition seeking the removal of Kenya Railways Managing Director Philip Mainga over allegations of corruption, irregular procurement and fraudulent land compensation payments.
In its decision, the court ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to intervene in matters reserved for statutory bodies.
Human rights defender Eric Kithinji Mwiti had petitioned the court in September 2024, accusing Mr Mainga of violating constitutional principles under Articles 10 (national values), 73 (leadership integrity), and 232 (public service ethics). The petitioner alleged that Mr Mainga engaged in irregular procurement.
He also alleged fictitious compensation payments for land in the Datuto/Dafur Settlement Scheme and embezzlement of public funds, undermining Kenya Railways’ financial integrity.
The petitioner sought an order declaring Mr Mainga’s continued stay in office was against public interest, a criminal investigation by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), prosecution by the DPP, and an injunction halting further compensation payments.
However, the court upheld Mr Mainga’s preliminary objection, emphasizing the separation of powers and statutory mandates.
It was argued that the CEO’s removal was beyond the court’s powers. Mr Mainga argued that Kenya Railways Corporation Act vests removal powers exclusively in the Cabinet Secretary, not the Judiciary.
He stated that bypassing statutory removal processes would violate legal procedures, adding that challenges to land payments fall under the Land Acquisition Tribunal and the Environment and Land Court, not constitutional petitions.
The court conceded, ruling that though corruption allegations remain serious, petitioners must use proper legal channels and the anti-corruption legal framework.
“The body with which the petitioner ought to have raised this complaint first is the EACC, as it is the one with the primary mandate to oversee public officers on matters of values and principles of governance under Chapter 6 of the Constitution,” said the court.
It noted that the petitioner had not complained to the EACC.
Another finding was that the EACC and DPP operate independently under Articles 249 and 157 of the Constitution and courts can only intervene if these bodies abdicate their duties.
Since no such failure was proven, the petition was dismissed.
“This is a perfect case to invoke the doctrine of judicial abstention, which allows this court to refrain from overstepping its judicial authority to allow the proper functioning of other government organs or bodies. The Petition is therefore struck out,” said the court.
