Petition filed challenging continued stay of KPA boss William Ruto in office

A petition has been filed at the High Court challenging the continued stay in office of Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Capt. William Kipkemboi Ruto.

The petitioner, Francis Awino, claims Capt. Ruto's three-year term, which commenced on March 10, 2023, expired on March 9, 2026, hence questioned the legal basis of his continued occupation of the position.

The petitioner is seeking conservatory orders suspending Capt. Ruto from exercising the powers and functions of KPA managing director pending the hearing and determination of the case.

The court has certified the matter as urgent and directed that the petition and the accompanying application be served on the respondents.

The respondents have been directed to file and serve their responses to the application and petition within seven days of being served.

The matter will come before the court on September 23, 2026, for directions and further orders as may be necessary.

In the petition and application, Awino alleges that there has been no publicly disclosed Gazette Notice, instrument of appointment, reappointment, renewal or extension demonstrating that Capt. Ruto obtained a fresh mandate to continue occupying the office after March 9, 2026.

The petitioner also challenged any continued payment of salary, allowances, benefits or other remuneration attached to the position, pending determination of the dispute.

The application further seeks orders requiring KPA to produce documents, including resolutions, minutes, approvals and other instruments relied upon to justify Capt. Ruto's continued occupation and exercise of the office after the alleged expiry of his term.

The petitioner argues that the continued exercise of the powers of the office by a person whose mandate is disputed raises questions concerning the lawful exercise of public power and the management of public resources.

The case cites several provisions of the Constitution, including Articles 1, 2, 3, 73, 75, 201 and 232, as well as provisions of the Government Owned Enterprises Act, 2025.

The petitioner says the case is not intended to determine the substantive dispute at the interlocutory stage but seeks interim orders to preserve the subject matter pending the hearing and determination of the petition.