Court halts implementation of new lecturer retirement circular
Crime and Justice
By
Kamau Muthoni
| Mar 18, 2026
A court in Nairobi on Wednesday handed university lecturers a major reprieve after suspending a new circular setting their retirement age at 70.
Employment and Labour Relations Court Judge Jacob Gakeri, in his orders, directed that the directive issued by the Public Service Commission (PSC) CEO, Paul Famba, should not be implemented until a case filed by the Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU) is heard and determined.
In this case, UASU’s lawyer Titus Koceyo argued that Famba’s decision was not well thought out, as he had triggered a crisis in universities.
The lawyer stated that the circular was a further violation of the collective bargaining agreement between his client and the government.
“ That the surprise move by the 1st Respondent has plunged the higher education sector into unprecedented chaos, disorder, and disruption of ongoing programmes and if not stopped forthwith, will have far-reaching negative ramifications on the higher education sector, which the country may not recover from for many years to come. The first respondent, in its lack of wisdom, could not see the need for an orderly transition in their actions,” argued Koceyo.
READ MORE
MoUs without jobs? Kenya's seafarer strategy under scrutiny
Cost-cutting measures when building a house
Property sector reaps big from rising demand for luxury healthcare
Africa will need 150,000 construction managers by 2035, says report
Nairobi floods: What can be done to remedy the situation
Womesa gets new team to push for women's interests in maritime sector
Why World Bank has banned PwC Kenya for 21 months
Kenya's REITs market surges as investor appetite grows
Kenya and Ireland to boost trade, investment
StanChart rewards shareholders with Sh11.7B dividend despite profit slump
He said that following the circular, all lecturers who are teaching and are above 70 years will be required to leave without a proper mechanism to ensure the vacuum left will be filled immediately.
Koceyo also said that there was no explanation why university professors were granted four more years while other lecturers were ordered to leave at the age of 70.
“The urgency of the matter is that if the circular is implemented now, it will lead to loss of employment for lecturers over 70 years with immediate effect. The Constitution, Employment Act, and the Public Service Commission Act do not envisage an abrupt loss of employment without following due process of the law,” said Koceyo.
He asserted that the retirement age determination is not among the roles that are cut for PSC.
According to him, Famba was attempting to outdo the already established retirement age for lecturers in public universities.
He asserted that the move was illegal and unfair as he did not allegedly consult the unions or universities before sealing the lecturer's fate.
Koceyo stated that UASU had last year inked an agreement with the universities to the effect that all assistant lecturers, tutorial fellows and graduate assistants would retire at 70 while lectures, senior lecturers, Associate professors and professors would retire at 74 years.
“That the exclusion of the Petitioners on matters touching on University Academic Staff salaries, benefits, Retirement ages, or other terms and conditions of employment is an infringement of the academic staff's right to Collective Bargaining Agreement guaranteed by the Constitution, the Employment Act and International best practices in Labour Relations,” he continued.
The lawyer said that his clients expected that their retirement age would be as communicated in the CBA.
UASU Secretary General Constantine Wasonga, in his supporting affidavit, claimed that Fambwa had allegedly secretly demanded that the circular be implemented without the involvement of the union.
He added that the directive was also a violation of court orders affirming that the retirement age for lecturers is 74.
“ the 1St Respondent has now issued a circular altering and varying the retirement ages downwards without involving the Petitioner who is a kev stakeholder since there is in place an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement that was painfully crafted by the Petitioners and the Employers for their members, which will be adversely affected by the intended implementation of the Circular by the Respondents, contrary to the law,” he said.
The case will be heard on March 24.