The High Court has certified as urgent a petition challenging the continued stay in office of Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Captain William Kipkemboi Ruto, with the case set for directions on September 23, 2026.
Justice Jairus Ngaah directed that the petition and the application filed by Francis Awino be served on the respondents for directions or further orders as may be necessary.
“In the meantime, the respondents are directed to file and serve their response to the application and the petition within seven days of the date of service of the pleadings,” Justice Ngaah directed.
Awino has asked the court to suspend Ruto from exercising the powers and functions of the KPA chief executive pending the hearing and determination of the petition.
The petitioner argues that Ruto’s three-year term as KPA managing director and CEO expired on March 9, 2026, after his appointment took effect on March 10, 2023.
He claims that despite the expiry of the fixed term, Ruto has continued to occupy and exercise the powers of the office.
“There has been no publicly disclosed Gazette Notice, instrument of appointment, reappointment, renewal or extension demonstrating that the 3rd Respondent (Captain Ruto) acquired a fresh and valid mandate to continue occupying the office after 9th March 2026,” Awino states in the application.
The case names the KPA Board of Directors as the first respondent, the Public Service Commission as the second respondent and Ruto as the third respondent.
The Salaries and Remuneration Commission has been listed as an interested party.
Awino has asked the court to issue interim conservatory orders suspending Ruto from exercising, performing or purporting to exercise the powers, functions, duties and privileges attached to the office.
He has also asked the court to restrain the KPA board from recognising, permitting or facilitating Ruto’s exercise of the powers of the CEO pending determination of the application and petition.
The petitioner further wants the board stopped from authorising or facilitating payment of salary, allowances, benefits or other remuneration specifically attached to the CEO’s office, unless directed otherwise by the court.
Should the case proceed to the substantive hearing, Awino wants the court to issue similar orders pending determination of the petition.
He is also seeking an order directing the KPA board to make arrangements for the lawful performance of the CEO’s functions by a duly authorised person.
In addition, the petitioner wants the board to produce documents relied upon as authority for Ruto’s continued occupation and exercise of the office after March 9.
Awino argues that the continued exercise of the office raises constitutional questions concerning the rule of law, good governance, transparency, accountability and the lawful exercise of public power.
“The continued exercise of such powers may further result in decisions, appointments, approvals, contracts, financial commitments and other administrative acts whose validity may subsequently become the subject of challenge,” he states.
He further argues that Ruto’s continued occupation of the office could result in further expenditure of public funds through payment of his salary, allowances and benefits while the legality of his tenure remains unresolved.
The petitioner has cited provisions of the Government Owned Enterprises Act, 2025, arguing that the law provides for the appointment of chief executives of government-owned enterprises through a prescribed statutory process and for a fixed term.
He contends that the transitional provisions of the new law did not automatically create a fresh or indefinite term for Ruto beyond the expiry of his original appointment.
