Lawyer asks court to remove KPA boss William Ruto over expired term

Felix Otieno, through Sigano & Omollo LLP Advocates, claims Capt. Ruto's term expired on March 9, 2026, and that there is no evidence of a lawful reappointment.

The petition filed at the Milimani Law Courts' Constitutional and Human Rights Division asks the court to determine "by what lawful authority" Capt. Ruto continues to hold the position.

"This Petition asks one question: by what lawful authority does the 3rd Respondent (Capt. Ruto) hold and exercise the office of Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Kenya Ports Authority?"

According to the petitioner, Capt. Ruto was appointed for a three-year term effective March 10, 2023, which expired on March 9, 2026.

Otieno argues that no instrument extending or renewing the appointment has been gazetted or disclosed.

The petition further argues that the legal framework governing the appointment changed following the enactment of the Government Owned Enterprises Act, 2025, which commenced on December 5, 2025, and repealed the Kenya Ports Authority Act.

Under the new law, the petitioner says, the power to appoint the KPA CEO rests with a properly constituted Board following a competitive recruitment process.

"Since 5th December 2025 the only authority competent to appoint or reappoint the Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Respondent has been its Board of Directors, acting under sections 18 and 22 of the Act and following a competitive recruitment process."

However, Otieno claims KPA does not currently have a properly constituted board capable of exercising that power.

An official company search conducted on September 2, 2026, allegedly showed that KPA PLC had only two directors, with the petitioner claiming there was no independent director or representative from the Ministry responsible for roads and transport.

The petitioner also claims Capt. Ruto does not appear in the company's records in any capacity.

The case also hinges on a transitional provision in the 2025 Act stating that an incumbent CEO "shall subject to the provisions of this Act, serve as the Chief Executive Officer."

Otieno argues the provision only preserved the unexpired portion of Capt. Ruto's existing tenure and did not give him a fresh term.

"Read subject to the provisions of the Act as its own words require, it preserved that unexpired portion and no more."

He argues that interpreting the provision as granting a new term would undermine the requirement for competitive recruitment and other safeguards under the Act.

The petitioner has asked the court to issue a quo warranto order requiring Capt. Ruto to show the authority under which he continues to occupy the office.

He is also seeking a declaration that any extension, renewal or reappointment made without a lawfully constituted board is "null and void ab initio."

The petition further seeks an order allowing a suitably qualified person to temporarily administer KPA's affairs pending a fresh recruitment process.

Otieno argues that the uncertainty surrounding the CEO's tenure could affect decisions involving port infrastructure, public assets, procurement, borrowing, concessions and public employment.

In a Certificate of Urgency, his lawyer Justus Omollo asked the court to hear the matter on a priority basis, warning that continued decisions by an office-holder whose tenure is being challenged could create "institutional uncertainty and potential prejudice to the public interest."

The petitioner has also sought interim orders, including an order restraining KPA from paying Capt. Ruto's salary and allowances pending determination of the case.

The application states that the orders sought are not intended to disrupt KPA's operations.