The Employment and Labour Relations Court has suspended a directive by Head of Public Service Joseph Kinyua, which scrapped the mandatory retirement age of parastatal chiefs.
Justice Onesmus Mutua on Tuesday issued a temporary injunction, prohibiting chief executive officers of state corporations from implementing the circular issued on February 28.
LEGALITY
The judge also certified the case urgent.
He directed Mr Okiya Omtatah to serve the Attorney-General with the court documents by the close of business on Wednesday.
In the case Mr Omtatah is seeking to determine the legality of the circular issued by Mr Kinyua, exempting CEOs of state corporations from the mandatory retirement age of 60 years.
The circular also said the CEOs can serve more than two terms.
Mr Omtatah also wants the court to determine the designation of Mr Kinyua as the Head of the Public Service.
In a circular dated February 27, titled “Terms of service for state corporations chief executive officers”, and addressed to all Cabinet secretaries, the Attorney-General, and all principal secretaries, Mr Kinyua exempted the said CEOs from the mandatory retirement age of 60 years and from the six-year term limit.
But according to Mr Omtatah, the office of the Head of the Public Service does not exist in law and only existed under the old Constitution.
MANDATE
He said Mr Kinyua, who is also the State House Chief of Staff, was handpicked by the President Kenyatta to serve on his private staff and was not vetted by Parliament.
In the circumstances, therefore, he cannot superintend the public service, outside the President’s private staff, he argued.
“He has no powers over principal secretaries or authorised officers, or in any way whatsoever, to take over, control, or to direct the functions and operations of the Public Service Commission,” Mr Omtatah said.
He said Mr Kinyua’s designation as Head of the Public Service is irregular as it undermines the mandate and authority of the PSC.
He accuses Mr Kinyua of usurping the powers and mandate of the PSC.
“The petitioner is aggrieved that the 1st respondent has given himself powers and a mandate unknown in law as the occupant of the non-existent office of the Head of the Public Service, and has issued a statutory instrument purporting to amend existing subsidiary legislations on the mandatory retirement age,” Mr Omtatah said.