High Court Quashes Aisha Jumwa's Appointment as Kenya Roads Board Chairperson — Declared Unconstitutional and Unlawful

 

photo: Former KRB Boss, Aisha Jumwa./courtesy

In what legal commentators are already describing as one of the most consequential rulings on public appointments in recent Kenyan judicial history, the High Court has struck down the appointment of former Gender Cabinet Secretary Aisha Jumwa Katana as non-executive Chairperson of the Kenya Roads Board (KRB) — declaring it unconstitutional, unlawful, and void ab initio, meaning illegal from the very beginning.

Delivering the ruling, Justice Bahati Mwamuye was unambiguous in his findings: the appointment process failed to comply with the mandatory statutory framework set out in law, and no amount of presidential goodwill, political loyalty, or gazette publication could retroactively cure that fundamental illegality.

"The appointment of Hon. Aisha Jumwa Katana as a member of the Kenya Roads Board is unconstitutional and unlawful ab initio as it did not comply with Section 7 of the Kenya Roads Boards Act and Articles 10, 47 and 232 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. A fresh appointment must follow the KRB Act and the Constitution."

— Justice Bahati Mwamuye, High Court of Kenya

Background: The Appointment That Was Challenged from Day One

On January 17, 2025, President William Ruto gazetted Aisha Jumwa's appointment as the non-executive Chairperson of the Kenya Roads Board for a period of three years. The move came just months after Jumwa was axed from the Cabinet in July 2024 — a casualty of the sweeping mass Cabinet dismissals that followed the historic Gen Z-led protests that shook the country.

Long before the court delivered its verdict, Ruto had all but publicly telegraphed his intention to keep Jumwa within the orbit of government. Speaking in Watamu in July 2024, the President stated plainly before her supporters in Kilifi: "She is my sister, she will walk with me, I will not leave her." The gazette notice that followed was widely seen as the fulfilment of that political promise.

But the courts had other ideas entirely.

Almost immediately upon gazetment, the appointment drew fierce and organised opposition. The Institution of Engineers of Kenya (IEK) formally rejected it, arguing that Jumwa had no background in civil, structural, or transport engineering — disciplines central to the KRB's mandate of overseeing road maintenance funding and coordination across the country. IEK argued further that her appointment directly violated Section 7 of the Kenya Roads Board Act, which prescribes detailed, mandatory statutory requirements for board membership and the nomination process.

Despite those objections, Jumwa was inaugurated as KRB Chairperson on January 28, 2025, in a ceremony presided over by Roads and Transport Cabinet Secretary Davis Chirchir — just a day after IEK's formal public rejection of her appointment. The legal storm that had been gathering since gazetment finally reached the courtroom, and the High Court has now delivered its verdict. 

What the High Court Actually Found: A Three-Pronged Constitutional Failure

The petition, filed as Francis Awino vs State Law Office and Hon. Aisha Jumwa Katana and 2 Others, challenged the legality of the presidential appointment at its root. Justice Mwamuye's ruling went straight to the heart of Kenya's constitutional framework for public appointments, resting on three interconnected constitutional failures.

1. Violation of Section 7, Kenya Roads Board Act No. 7 of 1999

The court found that the appointment was made "without demonstrable compliance" with the mandatory statutory framework under Section 7 of the KRB Act. The law is specific: board members must be nominated by designated organisations listed in the First Schedule of the Act — not handpicked through informal political channels or executive discretion.

Jumwa, the court found, did not represent any of the organisations mandated to make nominations under the Act, exposing a fatal procedural gap at the very core of her appointment process. The nomination pipeline prescribed by Parliament was bypassed entirely.

2. Violation of Articles 10, 47, and 232 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010

Beyond the statutory failure, the court found that the appointment process also violated three foundational constitutional provisions:

• Article 10 — National values and principles of governance, which require that all state organs uphold transparency, accountability, and integrity in the exercise of public power.
• Article 47 — The right to fair administrative action, which demands that administrative decisions be lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.
• Article 232 — The values and principles of the public service, including merit, transparency, equal opportunity, and accountability.

Taken together, the court found that the appointment process failed to meet the Constitution's minimum requirements for how Kenya's public servants are selected and appointed.

3. Gazetment Does Not Cure Illegality

Perhaps the most far-reaching legal principle affirmed by this ruling is the court's emphatic rejection of the argument — implicit in the government's position — that publication in the Kenya Gazette validates an otherwise unlawful appointment.

The court stated plainly: "Publication in the Gazette does not confer upon an appointment undertaken contrary to statute."

This is a critical judicial clarification that reverberates well beyond the Jumwa case. It confirms that a gazette notice is an administrative mechanism for announcing a lawful decision — not a constitutional instrument capable of laundering an unlawful one.

The Court Orders: What Has Been Quashed and What Remains

Justice Mwamuye's ruling was decisive on the core question of legality, while exercising careful judicial restraint on the practical consequences:

Quashed:

• Aisha Jumwa's appointment as KRB Chairperson declared unconstitutional and unlawful
• Gazette Notice No. 384 of January 16, 2025 — quashed
• Gazette Notice No. 395 of January 17, 2025 — quashed

Not disturbed:

• The court declined to nullify all decisions and actions taken by the board during Jumwa's tenure, noting that it "would not be reasonable or proportionate to quash all actions and decisions undertaken… without knowing the status, nature, and scope of those actions." The court emphasised the need to balance legality with public interest, particularly given Kenya's roads sector cannot afford governance paralysis.

Ordered:

• Any fresh appointment to the KRB Chairperson position must strictly comply with the Kenya Roads Board Act and constitutional requirements, including adherence to principles of transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and procedural fairness.

What This Ruling Means for Kenya's Public Appointments Landscape

The High Court's decision in the Jumwa case sends a clear and unmistakable message about constitutional order in Kenya's public sector: statutory processes are not optional. Presidential goodwill is not a lawful basis for appointment. A gazette notice is not a cure for procedural failure. And the courts will enforce these principles when called upon to do so.

For governance advocates and constitutional law scholars, the ruling is significant on multiple levels. It reinforces the justiciability of constitutional provisions on public appointments — meaning these are not merely aspirational principles but enforceable legal standards. It affirms the standing of citizens and professional bodies to challenge appointments that violate the law. And it establishes a clear judicial record that the executive cannot bypass statutory nomination processes, however strong the political motivation to do so.

The directive for a fresh appointment — one that strictly complies with the KRB Act and the Constitution — is not merely guidance. It is a binding judicial order. The government must now restart the process with proper stakeholder engagement, full compliance with the First Schedule of the KRB Act, and genuine adherence to the constitutional values of transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and procedural fairness.