- The High Court has invalidated TSC’s 2025 recruitment process for Secretary and Chief Executive Officer.
- The court found the application window and omission of remuneration breached the commission’s recruitment procedures.
- However, education degree and experience requirements for the powerful office remain legally valid.
The High Court has quashed the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) recruitment process for its Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, ordering the commission to advertise the position afresh after finding that the May 2025 exercise breached the law and TSC’s own recruitment procedures.
Justice Dorah Chepkwony, however, upheld the statutory requirement that anyone appointed to head the commission must hold a degree in education and possess at least 10 years’ experience in the education sector.
The decision arose from a petition filed by Simon Kariuki Kimaita challenging both the qualifications prescribed for the position and the recruitment process TSC initiated through Vacancy No. TSC/CS/001/2025 on May 6, 2025.
TSC, the National Assembly, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and the Attorney-General were named as respondents, while teachers Jane Namachi, Beatrice Achieng Ogallo and Lucas Odhiambo Ondiek were admitted as interested parties.
In its 39-page judgment, the court rejected objections seeking to stop it from determining the case and held that the High Court had jurisdiction because Kimaita had approached it as a citizen raising a public-law constitutional challenge rather than as an applicant seeking employment.
The court summarised its findings early in the judgment, stating that the statutory qualifications survived constitutional scrutiny but that the recruitment process “must accordingly be quashed and redone in compliance with the law.”
At the heart of Kimaita’s petition was Section 16(2)(b) and (c) of the Teachers Service Commission Act, which requires the Secretary and CEO to hold a degree in education from a recognised university and have at least 10 years’ experience in education, administration and management, public administration, human resource or financial management.
Kimaita argued that the CEO’s functions were primarily executive, administrative and financial, meaning professionals such as lawyers, economists, accountants, human resource practitioners and public administrators should not be excluded merely because they lacked education degrees.
The court disagreed.
Justice Chepkwony found that TSC was not an ordinary employer but a constitutional commission established under Article 237 of the Constitution with responsibility for registering, employing, deploying, promoting, transferring and disciplining teachers, as well as reviewing standards of education and teacher training.
The judge said Parliament was entitled to prescribe qualifications linked to the specialised sector an office holder would supervise.
She observed that the statutory requirement envisaged “not merely a person with a paper qualification in education” but an individual whose experience had also been tested within the education sector.
The court consequently held that requiring an education degree and relevant experience was rationally connected to TSC’s constitutional mandate and did not amount to unlawful discrimination against professionals from other fields.
It therefore upheld Section 16(2)(b) and (c) of the TSC Act as constitutional, meaning the qualifications will remain applicable when the position is advertised afresh.
13-day application window faulted
While TSC succeeded in defending the qualifications, the court found serious defects in how the May 2025 recruitment process was conducted.
The vacancy was advertised on May 6, 2025, with applications closing on May 19.
The judge found that the interval amounted to 13 days, falling below the minimum 14-day application period prescribed in TSC’s Human Resource Policies and Procedures Manual for Secretariat Staff.
TSC had maintained in its court papers that applicants had been given a longer period, but the judge rejected that position after examining the actual dates.
The court said the shortened period could not simply be dismissed as a technical defect because it affected the opportunity available to qualified Kenyans to seek the position.
“A recruitment window shortened below the recruiting body’s own published minimum, without explanation or justification,” the judge stated, was “not a mere irregularity of form”.
Justice Chepkwony added that the shortened period substantially curtailed the opportunity available to otherwise qualified members of the public, including serving teachers regulated by TSC, to compete for the position on equal and fair terms.
Pay and benefits omitted
The court also faulted TSC for failing to disclose the remuneration and benefits attached to the Secretary and CEO position.
The advertisement only indicated that remuneration would be determined in accordance with Salaries and Remuneration Commission guidelines.
However, the court noted that TSC’s own human resource manual required recruitment advertisements to contain specified information, including remuneration details.
The omission, together with the shortened application period, persuaded the court that the recruitment process had not complied with the standards of fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution.
Justice Chepkwony consequently declared the May 6, 2025 advertisement and the entire recruitment process founded on it unlawful.
Fresh advertisement ordered
The court ordered TSC to re-advertise the Secretary and CEO vacancy in full compliance with the Constitution, the law and its human resource procedures.
It declined to impose a specific deadline, but directed that the fresh recruitment be undertaken “without undue delay”.
The court also rejected claims that the vacancy had first been required to be gazetted, finding that the statutory gazettement requirement applied to vacancies for TSC chairperson and commissioners, not to the Secretary and CEO position.
Claims that the recruitment process was biased or disadvantaged younger applicants were similarly dismissed, with the court finding that sufficient evidence had not been presented to support them.
The ruling effectively sends TSC back to the drawing board while preserving the qualifications Parliament prescribed for whoever eventually succeeds to the commission’s top administrative office.
Several senior education officials and former union officials had expressed interest in the position during the now-invalidated recruitment exercise.
They included Antonina Lentoijoni and Wilson Sossion, who have since been appointed TSC commissioners and would therefore no longer proceed as candidates for the CEO position.
Other known applicants included TSC Director of Operations Gabriel Matenge, Director of Finance Cheptumo Ayabei and Coast Regional Director Lillian Wachira.
Eveleen Mitei, who has been serving as acting Secretary and CEO following the departure of Nancy Macharia, remains central to the leadership transition as the commission prepares to restart the recruitment process.
READ ALSO: Why teacher unions and heads’ associations should have a voice in TSC promotions
The judgment was dated and signed at Murang’a on September 15, 2026, by Justice Dorah Chepkwony and delivered at Kiambu on September 17, 2026, by Justice Francis Nyungu Kyambia.
By Our Reporter
Get more stories from our website: Education News
To write to us or offer feedback, you can reach us at: editor@educationnews.co.ke
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
