Reprieve for KPA board on new appointments
The new Mombasa Law Courts building in this picture taken on June 8, 2023.
What you need to know:
- Judges rule that the intended appeal by KPA board against the judgment was not frivolous.
- The three-judge bench also ordered PSC to make a report to the court for adoption.
The Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) board got a reprieve after the Court of Appeal suspended implementation of a judgment directing that its resolution on the application of the human resource instruments that affect new appointments and deployments shall be subject to an audit by the Public Service Commission (PSC).
The three-judge bench of Gatembu Kairu, Agnes Murgor and Kibaya Laibuta noted that it would be less disruptive and in public interest to maintain the state of affairs as they are.
The appellate court ruled this would be pending hearing and determination of an intended appeal by KPA against the Employment and Labour Relations Court judgment.
The judges also ruled that the intended appeal by the KPA board against the judgment was not frivolous.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court had ruled that PSC shall make recommendations that ensure efficiency and effectiveness, and that the audit process should be undertaken within six months at the cost of KPA.
Implementation of judgment
It also ordered PSC to make a report to the court for adoption.
The Human Rights Commission, in its application at the Employment and Labour Relations Court had sought to have the decision of the board dated April 20, 2022 to implement its revised human resource instruments and effect new staff appoints or deployments quashed.
The NGO also sought an order to prohibit the KPA board from implementing its decision.
In its application to have the decision suspended, the KPA board had argued that the execution of the decision will culminate in implementation of recommendations of the PSC once adopted as an order of the court.
KPA board had also argued that the implementation of the judgment will result in intrusion on its mandate by the commission, which will cause confusion and uncertainty.
Appointed irregularly
It further argued that its human resource instruments have been implemented and employees of Kenya Ferry Services absorbed.
PSC had argued that the intended appeal by the board was not arguable and that the powers and functions of the commission under the constitution were exercisable over the entire public service, including state corporations.
The commission argued that contrary to claims by the KPA board that the decision by the Employment and Labour Relations Court had created confusion, the converse was true as exemplified by similar court findings regarding its (commission) human resource powers involving other state corporations.
According to the commission, the KPA board had not demonstrated how its appeal will be rendered nugatory if the orders sought are declined.
PSC argued that should the appeal fail, 41 appointments made pursuant to the unlawful human resource instruments would be nullified and that public funds would have been lost through salaries paid to persons found to have been appointed irregularly.
