The Employment and Labour Relations Court has set a powerful precedent by rejecting an applicant seeking to join the TSC CEO recruitment case. Here’s what this means for constitutional petitions and future public litigation.
A recent ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court has sparked renewed debate about who qualifies to join constitutional petitions as an “interested party” in Kenya. By dismissing Dr. Adano Salad Kadubo’s bid to join the ongoing court case challenging the recruitment of the Teachers Service Commission’s next chief executive, the court has clarified a critical legal boundary—one that will shape future litigation involving public institutions.
The petition at the center of the dispute was filed by Kenyan citizen Thomas Mosomi Oyugi. His case challenges the legality and procedural integrity of the recruitment process initiated to find a successor for former TSC boss Nancy Macharia. As the matter moved toward a full hearing, Dr. Kadubo sought to join the case, arguing that he had a long-standing interest in the position and unique insights into why the recruitment was flawed.
In its ruling, the judge noted that Dr. Kadubo’s application did not meet the strict legal threshold required for adding an interested party to a constitutional case. The court emphasized that he had not presented new evidence, unique perspectives, or additional constitutional issues that were not already captured in the main petition.
According to the judge, the issues he intended to raise were “substantially identical” to what the petitioner had already advanced. Because of this duplication, adding him to the case would not enhance the court’s ability to render a fair and just decision.
The court’s position was clear: being personally affected or having aspirations tied to an outcome does not automatically qualify someone to join a constitutional petition.
Dr. Kadubo’s Arguments: Personal Ambition vs Constitutional Interest
In his court filings, Dr. Kadubo explained that he had long been interested in becoming the TSC CEO. He stated that the Commission advertised the vacancy before the position was legally open, given that Macharia was still in office at the time.
To him, this violated:
The principle of rule of law
Fair administrative action
Constitutional expectations of transparency
He noted that he expected the vacancy to be declared publicly in advance, not announced quietly through a little-known publication. Because the advertisement appeared in the My Government newspaper and on the TSC website—platforms he argued do not guarantee widespread public awareness—he claimed he never got a fair shot at applying.
Nevertheless, the court held that Dr. Kadubo’s personal interest in the job did not translate into a constitutional stake that justified his inclusion in the petition.
TSC’s Counterargument: No Special Ground for Inclusion
The Teachers Service Commission opposed his application forcefully. In an affidavit signed by its chairperson, Dr. Jamleck Muturi, TSC argued that:
The application sought to advance individual ambitions rather than public interest.
The recruitment process followed all legal requirements.
Allowing every disgruntled or missed-out applicant to join the petition would overload the judiciary with unnecessary parties.
TSC took the view that the petition should remain focused on constitutional issues—not the emotions or aspirations of prospective candidates.
The court agreed.
Why This Ruling Matters for Future Litigants
This ruling is more than a procedural footnote. It carries significant implications for how public interest cases will be managed going forward.
Key takeaways include:
1. Interested-party applications must demonstrate unique value.
It is not enough to have an opinion or personal stake. Applicants must prove that their involvement will help the court understand the issues better.
2. Personal ambition is not public interest.
The court drew a clear boundary between individual goals and broader constitutional concerns.
3. Constitutional petitions are not open forums.
Courts are willing to limit participation to prevent cases from becoming chaotic, unfocused, or delayed.
4. The ruling protects the efficiency of judicial processes.
By setting a high bar for new parties, courts ensure petitions remain streamlined and manageable.
How This Affects Public Service Recruitment Cases
While the main petition challenging the TSC recruitment will proceed, the ruling discourages a flood of similar applications from aspirants who may have missed deadlines or disagreed with recruitment procedures.
It reinforces the idea that:
Recruitment disputes must be rooted in legal violations, not individual dissatisfaction.
Public service processes should be accountable, but not crippled by endless litigation.
Courts will prioritize issues that affect the public—not private ambitions.
Looking Ahead
The main petition filed by Mr. Oyugi will now move toward a full hearing. It raises constitutional questions that may determine whether the TSC followed due process when advertising the CEO position. Regardless of the outcome, the court’s refusal to expand the list of participants ensures the matter proceeds without unnecessary delay.
For future litigants, this ruling is a reminder that constitutional petitions are serious legal tools—not platforms for personal grievances.
