Lawyer questions KPA boss's stay in office after expiry of term

A row over Kenya Ports Authority’s Managing Director William Ruto’s term in office has landed in court.

Lawyer Felix Otieno, in his case filed before High Court Judge David Mburu, claimed that Ruto’s three-year term lapsed in March 2026, but an extension of the contract has not been gazetted, nor has the recruitment of a successor been initiated.

Otieno’s lawyer Justus Omolo stated that Ruto was appointed as the KPA boss on March 10, 2023, for a three-year term. He alleged that the KPA MD ought to have left the Mombasa-based institution on March 10, 2026.

“No instrument of reappointment, extension or renewal has been published in the Kenya Gazette or otherwise disclosed, notwithstanding that the original appointment was itself effected by publication in the Gazette,” argued Otieno.

 He further argued that Ruto’s exit is complicated by the lack of a properly constituted board as required by the law.

According to the lawyer, the government privatised some of its parastatals through the Government Owned Enterprises Act, 2025.

 He said KPA was among those golden geese affected by the changes, adding that the new law shifted the power to select a Chief Executive Officer from the government to a board of directors appointed by the shareholders.

The court heard that although KPA had been converted into a Public Listed Company (PLC), the government has remained the sole shareholder.

He, however, pointed out that a search at the companies’ registry allegedly revealed that, to date, no directors, both independent and from the Ministry of Roads and Transport, had been appointed. He insisted there was no board to extend Ruto’s contract as at March 9, 2026, when his contract was to lapse.

“There consequently exists no organ competent in law to have appointed or

reappointed the third respondent after March 9, 2026 and, in the alternative, if the persons recorded on the register constitute a Board competent to act, that Board has never competitively recruited or appointed him, passed any resolution appointing him, evaluated his performance or renewed his term. On either basis, he holds no warrant for the office he occupies and exercises,” argued Omolo.

He said that only the Cabinet Secretary to the National Treasury of Kenya, John Mbadi, and the Principal Secretary, Chris Kiptoo, and one, Lawrence Kibet, as company secretary,

He stated that his client did not intend to interrupt KPA operations, but he was instead questioning the legality of Ruto’s stay in office.

The lawyer argued that the law requires that a CEO should be hired for three years fixed term, after which the tenure may be extended once.

According to him, a CEO is only allowed to extend the unexpired portion of a lawful existing term, but that does not create a fresh term.

Otieno sued KPA, Captain Ruto, Public Service Commission (PSC), Transport CS David Chirchir, Mbadi, and the Attorney General.

He said that the KPA was sensitive and strategic for the country; hence, there ought not to be uncertainty about the top management.

“Every further contract, concession, procurement decision, borrowing arrangement, senior appointment or strategic commitment made during the disputed tenure may deepen institutional uncertainty and expose the public, the Corporation and innocent third parties to avoidable prejudice.”

“The injury is aggravated by the transition of the respondent under the Government Owned Enterprises Act, 2025, including the reorganization of its corporate form and the arrangements affecting the terminals at the Ports of Mombasa and Lamu. Commitments of that magnitude, made during a period of contested authority, may bind the institution and the public for decades,” he said.

 The lawyer wants the court to find that Ruto’s term ended in March this year. He also wants the court to find that any extension or new recruitment can only be done if and when a board is in place.

At the same time, he is seeking an order that the coming into effect of the 2025 law did not mean creating a fresh or additional tenure in office.

“Any extension, renewal or reappointment purportedly made after December 5, 2025 by the fifth respondent (CS Treasury), or by any person or body other than a lawfully constituted Board acting under sections 18 and 22 following competitive recruitment, was made without jurisdiction and is null and void ab initio,” argued Otieno.

The judge directed that the case be mentioned before Justice Patricia Nyaundi on October 6, 2026.