Why court declined to halt KTDA CEO hiring

The court said the orders sought by Mr Onyango “amount to the influence of the managerial powers of the employer”.

“The court cannot issue such orders ex parte,” it said.

Mr Onyango argued that KTDA advertised the recruitment of a group CEO in January 2026 without following due process and in contravention of several constitutional provisions.

He submitted that the alleged violations threaten principles of equality, fair labour practices and fair administrative action, affecting more than 600,000 smallholder tea farmers who depend on KTDA and Kenya’s foreign exchange earnings.

“The petitioner avers that if this impugned decision is not halted, it will entrench these unconstitutional actions and cause irreversible institutional harm,” he said.

Mr Onyango further claimed that the process was founded on selective retirement enforcement and arbitrary bypassing of other officers. If allowed to proceed, he argued, it would render the petition nugatory, cause irreparable harm to the sector and set a dangerous governance precedent in quasi-public institutions.

Forced leave

He said former CEO Wilson Muthaura was allegedly forced into terminal leave on January 16, 2026, upon attaining the mandatory retirement age of 60.

According to the petitioner, this was done without considering an extension under Section 80(2) of the Public Service Commission Act, 2017 and PSC regulations, which allow extensions in cases of rare expertise or public interest.

“The selective enforcement of the retirement age against the said Wilson Muthaura without extension, while no similar strict application was applied to prior executives in comparable circumstances, constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 27 of the Constitution and lacks any rational or legitimate public purpose,” he said.

He added that Simon Rugut, the group finance and strategy director, was allegedly bypassed on the grounds that he was on “approved leave”, without any attempt to recall him, contrary to Section 28 of the Employment Act, 2007.

Mr Onyango further argued that instead of following internal succession protocols, the company appointed Francis Miano as acting group CEO and advertised the substantive position without stakeholder consultation, transparency or public participation, as required under Article 232(1)(f) of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Tea Act.

He urged the court to halt the process, saying the balance of convenience favoured conservatory orders to preserve the status quo pending the determination of the petition.

“That no meaningful consultation was held with smallholder tea farmers, farmer-elected directors or the supervisory Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development prior to the bypassing decision, the acting CEO appointment or the commencement of the recruitment process, thereby violating the participatory governance principles enshrined in the Tea Act, 2020 and Article 10 of the Constitution,” he said.

→ [email protected]

Follow ourWhatsApp channel for the latest business and markets updates.