The 50 Chief Administrative Secretaries (CASs) will wait longer before assuming office after the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by Dennis Itumbi seeking to allow them to commence work.
Appellate court judges, Hellen Omondi, Imaana Laibuta and Ngenye Machari threw out the request by Itumbi to vacate the orders of the High Court barring CASs from assuming office and drawing salaries from the exchequer terming it premature.
"We find the appeal application by Itumbi is premature and is hereby dismissed, " the judges said.
The court of appeal judges said that they can not inquire into a matter live at the High Court.
The judges dismissed the application as a three-judge bench sitting at the Milimani High Court On Friday, May 26, 2023, heard that the appointments were illegal and a nullity in law.
Justice Kanyi Kimondo, Hedwig Ong'undi and Alnashir Vislam set July 3 as the day to determine the fate of the 50 CAS's appointment by President William Ruto.
Law Society of Kenya (LSK), Katiba Institute, Activist Eliud Matindi and Multi-Touch International have challenged the appointments asking the court to quash the same.
Itumbi's appeal
In the appeal by Itumbi, he had sought to vacate the orders barring them from assuming office on the grounds that they will suffer a substantial loss in that they will remain in a state of "career purgatory" since their appointment can not take effect.
He argued that they can not secure employment elsewhere since they have been appointed and sworn-in in their current respective offices.
"Since the appointees can neither serve in the office to which they were recruited nor seek other gainful employment; the balance of convenience tilts in favour of sustaining the appointment of the CASs to facilitate seamless service delivery within the Public Service, " Itumbi argued.
But the petitioners in the High Court LSK, Katiba Institute and Matindi urged the Court of Appeal to dismiss the appeal by Itumbi as it is 'premature'.
"The application before this court and the intended appeal is premature, as the matters to which they relate are yet to be heard and determined by the High Court," they argued.
