NAIROBI, Kenya — The Employment and Labour Relations Court has certified as urgent a petition challenging the appointment of James Mworia as the first chief executive officer of the National Infrastructure Fund, paving the way for an expedited hearing of the dispute.
Justice Stella Chemtai Rutto, in an order issued on September 9, 2026, directed that the case be heard during the court recess after petitioners raised concerns over the circumstances surrounding Mworia’s appointment.
The court directed petitioners Javan Onyango and Emmanuel Kiplagat to serve their application on the respondents, who have been given seven days from the date of service to file and serve their responses.
The matter will come before the trial court on September 21 for further directions and orders.
The petitioners have also asked the court to temporarily suspend Mworia’s appointment and restrain him from exercising the functions of CEO until their case is determined.
Petitioners question Mworia’s role on Fund board
At the centre of the petition is the claim that Mworia was appointed CEO while he was still a sitting independent director on the National Infrastructure Fund’s six-member Board — the same Board that conducted the recruitment and selected him for the position.
The petitioners argue that Mworia’s participation in the recruitment process created an apparent conflict of interest and raised questions over the fairness and integrity of the appointment.
“A sitting Board member competing for a post the same Board was constitutionally and statutorily bound to fill impartially discloses, on the face of the public record, an apparent conflict of interest and gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias,” they argue in court papers.
They want the court to determine whether Mworia disclosed his interest and refrained from participating in deliberations or voting on the appointment as required under Section 16 of the National Infrastructure Fund Act, 2026.
The court has not made a finding on the allegations.
Petition challenges CEO recruitment process
The petitioners have also questioned the recruitment process used to fill the CEO position, including the period applicants were given to submit their applications.
According to their pleadings, the vacancy was advertised around July 13 or 14, shortly after the Fund’s Board was constituted, with applications closing on July 31.
They contend that this provided applicants with only about 17 to 18 days to apply.
The petitioners have further raised concerns over the requirement for shortlisted candidates to obtain clearance certificates from the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), Higher Education Loans Board (HELB), Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and a registered Credit Reference Bureau.
They argue that the short application period, combined with the clearance requirements, could have disadvantaged prospective applicants.
Petitioners demand publication of applicants
Another issue raised in the petition is the failure to publish the names of applicants or shortlisted candidates.
The petitioners argue that neither the Fund’s Board nor the National Treasury published a list of people who applied for the CEO position or those who progressed to the interview stage.
“The complete failure to publish any list of the candidates who applied for the position of Chief Executive Officer, or any shortlist of those who progressed to the interview stage, denied the Kenyan public any opportunity whatsoever to scrutinise whether any candidates applied, who those candidates were,” the petitioners state.
They contend that the absence of a published shortlist also prevented the public from assessing whether the recruitment complied with constitutional requirements relating to gender balance, ethnic diversity and regional representation.
The claims are part of the petition and have yet to be determined by the court.
Fund has Sh5 trillion potential mandate
The petitioners say the urgency of their case is heightened by the scale of the National Infrastructure Fund’s mandate.
The Fund was established under legislation assented to on March 9, 2026, with the primary objective of mobilising long-term domestic and international capital for commercially viable national infrastructure projects.
According to the petitioners, the Fund could mobilise as much as Sh5 trillion.
They argue that allowing Mworia to continue exercising the powers of CEO before the recruitment dispute is resolved could result in decisions that may be difficult to reverse.
“Unless this Honourable Court intervenes urgently by way of conservatory orders, the 4th Respondent will continue to exercise the extensive powers conferred upon the Chief Executive Officer under Sections 18, 19 and 22 of the Act over a Fund expected to mobilise Kenya Shillings Five Trillion,” they state.
The petitioners describe the recruitment as “competitive only in form and pre-determined in substance”, alleging breaches of constitutional principles relating to transparency, accountability, fair competition and leadership.
Petition contrasts Board and CEO recruitment
The petitioners have also compared the CEO recruitment process with the earlier process used to constitute the Fund’s Board.
According to the court papers, 78 people applied for positions on the Board, with 16 candidates shortlisted and interviewed before six directors were appointed.
Mworia was among four independent directors appointed to the Board through a Gazette notice dated July 8, 2026, according to the petitioners.
They argue that the Board was therefore fully constituted only days before the CEO position was advertised.
The Board subsequently announced Mworia’s appointment on September 7, describing it as the outcome of a competitive recruitment process.
The petition before the court challenges that assertion and seeks orders suspending the appointment.
Respondents given seven days to respond
The respondents in the case are the National Infrastructure Fund Board, the Cabinet Secretary for National Treasury and Economic Planning, the Attorney-General and James Mworia.
They have been given seven days after service of the application to file and serve their responses.
Justice Rutto’s September 9 order only concerns the urgency and expedited handling of the matter. It does not determine whether the allegations made by the petitioners are valid.
The court will hear the matter on September 21, 2026, when further directions and orders are expected.
