A legal dispute has emerged at Kenyatta University, where an alumnus is seeking urgent court intervention to prevent the institution’s vice-chancellor from influencing the recruitment of his successor. The petition, filed before the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi, accuses Vice-Chancellor Prof. Paul Kuria Wainaina of exceeding his mandate by allegedly engineering “tailor-made” recruitment criteria intended to advantage a preferred candidate.
The applicant, Lawrence Omondi Chero, argues that with Prof. Wainaina’s five-year tenure set to end on January 26, 2026, the vice-chancellor has “deliberately engaged in acts that are ultra vires the Universities Act, the University Charter, and the Universities Statutes.” In his sworn affidavit, Chero claims that Prof. Wainaina unlawfully constituted a committee in June 2025 to develop criteria for the next vice-chancellor, despite this responsibility legally resting with the University Council and the Public Service Commission.
According to the suit, the committee’s report was presented to a special Senate meeting on July 15, 2025, which was convened with only one day’s notice and without a formal agenda. Despite this, the meeting reportedly adopted the proposed criteria. Chero is now seeking to have both the committee’s report and the Senate’s approval annulled, warning that the matter is urgent because the University Council, which has final appointing authority, is set to meet on November 17, 2025, where the disputed criteria could be ratified.
At the centre of the legal challenge are the qualifications proposed by the impugned committee. Chero contends that the requirements are “irrational, ultra vires, and unreasonable.” Among the contested conditions are a demand for 15 years of senior leadership and administrative experience, a requirement that applicants must have served as a deputy vice-chancellor or principal of a constituent college for at least one full five-year term, and an expectation of extensive senior management training, including leadership coursework totalling no less than four cumulative weeks.
Chero argues that these heightened requirements—when compared to Kenyatta University’s past vacancy announcements in 2017, 2015, and 2005, as well as current adverts from other reputable institutions—are unreasonably restrictive. He asserts that they effectively create an unfair advantage. “There is an apparent conflict of interest for the 1st Respondent to directly participate in the recruitment of his successor by setting up a criterion for qualification which is designed to edge out other applicants and favour a candidate of his choice,” the affidavit states.
The application also cites a government circular dated November 23, 2010, which outlines procedures for the reappointment of CEOs in state corporations. According to the circular, a CEO seeking reappointment must apply at least six months before their term expires. If the board declines renewal, the CEO must proceed on terminal leave to facilitate a smooth transition. The applicant argues that Prof. Wainaina’s continued involvement in the recruitment process “at the tail end of his term” contradicts this directive.
Nonetheless, minutes from the special Senate meeting show that both the committee and the Senate defended the enhanced criteria. The committee indicated that it benchmarked its recommendations against practices at several local and international universities, aiming to “strengthen criteria to reflect recent transformations in higher education globally.” During the Senate discussions, one justification offered was that requiring at least five years of senior leadership experience ensures that applicants have “deputised holders of that position for at least one full term to understand the demands of the office.”
Chero’s application seeks several reliefs, including orders barring Prof. Wainaina from participating further in the recruitment process, preventing the University Council from acting on the Senate’s recommendations, and halting the entire process to protect the independence of the Council and the Public Service Commission.
The case is expected to significantly influence the leadership transition at one of Kenya’s largest universities. With the Council’s decisive meeting fast approaching, the court’s ruling on the interim orders will determine whether the recruitment proceeds under the contested criteria or is reset to ensure an impartial process. The judgement is also likely to set an important precedent on governance, accountability, and conflict-of-interest standards in Kenya’s public universities.