The Court of Appeal has declined to suspend a ruling that nullified the appointment of a Wajir assistant chief, clearing the way for a fresh recruitment process as the appeal against the decision proceeds.
In a ruling delivered on July 10, 2026, appellate judges Gatembu Kairu, Mumbi Ngugi and Francis Tuiyott dismissed an application by Jibril Adan Abdikarim, who had sought to stop the government from advertising and filling the position of Assistant Chief II for Hadado South Sub-Location in Ademasajida Division, Wajir County.
Abdikarim had also sought to stay the execution of a judgment by the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC), which nullified his appointment and ordered a fresh recruitment exercise.
The dispute stems from the recruitment process for the assistant chief position, which required applicants to be at least 30 years old. Abdikarim was appointed to the post on April 2, 2025, after several rounds of interviews.
However, another candidate, Abdi Ahmed Adan, challenged the appointment, arguing that Abdikarim did not meet the minimum age requirement and alleging nepotism and discrimination during the recruitment process.
In September 2025, the ELRC agreed with Adan, quashed Abdikarim's appointment, directed the Ministry of Interior to conduct a fresh recruitment, and awarded Adan Sh500,000 in damages for violation of his constitutional rights.
Seeking to halt implementation of that decision, Abdikarim moved to the Court of Appeal, arguing that unless the orders were stayed, the position would be re-advertised and filled before his appeal was heard, causing him irreparable harm.
The appellate judges acknowledged that the intended appeal raises legitimate legal questions.
"Based on the memorandum of appeal, there are questions that merit appellate consideration, for instance, whether, as contended, age can, without a statutory basis, be a lawful ground for nullifying a public appointment," the judges said.
The court added that "one arguable point suffices. We are persuaded that the appeal is not frivolous. It is arguable."
Despite finding that the appeal is arguable, the judges held that Abdikarim failed to demonstrate that refusing to grant a stay would render the appeal worthless.
The court noted that any financial loss suffered by the applicant could be compensated because the salary attached to the office was known and quantifiable.
"The loss the applicant would have suffered, should the appeal ultimately succeed, is easily quantifiable and reparable," the judges ruled.
They also observed that Abdikarim had based his application solely on personal loss and had not demonstrated that preserving his appointment was in the public interest.
"The applicant did not assert that to grant a stay, in respect to this public office, would be in the public interest. He restricted himself to an apprehension of a personal loss," the court stated.
The judges consequently dismissed the application, allowing the ELRC orders—including the fresh recruitment process—to remain in force pending the determination of the substantive appeal.
However, noting that the dispute concerned a public office, the Court of Appeal directed that each party bear its own costs.
Comments
Sign in with Google to comment, reply, and like comments.
Continue with Google