Win for Philip Mainga as court rejects bid to oust him as Kenya Railways boss
The High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to challenge the continued stay in office of Kenya Railways Corporation Managing Director Philip Mainga, saying the allegations against him were too general and that the petitioners had failed to use available channels before going to court.
Justice Joseph Kipkoech Biomdo dismissed the petition filed by Ken Njau, Arnet Njoki, Boniface Ndima, Carolyne Chelimo and Davis Kariuki against the Attorney-General, the Cabinet Secretary for Roads and Transport and the Kenya Railways Corporation Board.
The judge also dismissed a related application filed alongside the petition and ordered the petitioners to pay costs to the Kenya Railways Corporation Board and the two interested parties, Mr Mainga and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).
The petitioners had alleged that Mr Mainga was irregularly occupying the position of managing director because his term had expired around 2024.
They also accused him of corruption, bribery, abuse of office, procurement irregularities and mismanagement of Kenya Railways.
Among the allegations was that Mr Mainga received a bribe of about Sh130 million in connection with the award of a consultancy contract for the Nairobi Railway City Central Station project.
The petitioners also linked him, through allegations made by activists, to the alleged loss of Sh700 billion in the Standard Gauge Railway tender.
But Justice Biomdo said the allegations were not supported by sufficient details to enable the court to consider them.
On the alleged Sh130 million bribe, the judge said the petition did not state when or where the alleged payment was made or identify the person who allegedly gave the money.
“It is also alleged that the 1st Interested Party received a bribe of approximately Sh130 million,” the judge said, adding that the petition did not specify the “date, month, year, place, or the person from whom the alleged bribe was received.”
The judge described the allegations linking Mr Mainga to the alleged Sh700 billion SGR tender loss as speculative.
“The Court finds these allegations to be speculative at best, and they cannot form the basis of a constitutional petition,” Justice Biomdo said in a ruling delivered in Nairobi on October 5.
He added: “The courts will not protect an imaginary deprivation of a fundamental right.”
The petitioners had also challenged the process through which Mr Mainga was appointed and sought his removal from office.
However, the judge noted that a new law governing government-owned enterprises had come into force on December 5, 2025, replacing the Kenya Railways Corporation Act.
Under the new law, the Kenya Railways board is responsible for appointing and removing the corporation’s chief executive.
The judge said the petitioners had not shown that they had first approached the board using the procedure provided under the new law.
“The Petitioners have provided no evidence or averment to demonstrate that they invoked the provisions of this Act in relation to the 1st Interested Party( Mr Mainga)c before approaching this Court,” the judge said.
The petitioners had also raised questions over a consultancy tender awarded by Kenya Railways.
But the court found that the procurement dispute had already been dealt with by the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board in a case involving Dar Kenya/Dar Plus Joint Venture and the Kenya Railways accounting officer.
The board dismissed the procurement challenge and upheld the procurement on May 25, 2026.
Justice Biomdo said the decision had already dealt with the procurement grievance and that it could not form the basis of the new petition.
The petitioners also accused Mr Mainga of bribery, corruption and abuse of office.
However, the judge said no specific details had been provided to support those claims, and there was no evidence that a formal complaint had been made to the EACC.
“There is no evidence that a complaint was ever made to the 2nd Interested Party herein, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, to enable the Commission to inquire into or investigate the allegations,” the judge said.
The petitioners had further sought information relating to Kenya Railways’ procurement, employment and governance.
The court found that they had not demonstrated that they had first made a formal request for the information through the procedure provided by law.
Justice Biomdo said the petition did not identify the specific information allegedly withheld or the entity that had failed to provide it.
He noted that the law provides a procedure for seeking information from public bodies and gives the Commission on Administrative Justice an oversight role in disputes over access to information.
“There is no evidence that the Petitioners invoked these statutory provisions before approaching this Court, or that the provided mechanism is inadequate,” the judge said.
The Kenya Railways Corporation Board had asked the court to strike out the petition, arguing that the petitioners had gone to court prematurely instead of using established mechanisms.
The board also argued that the petition amounted to an abuse of the court process because other cases raising substantially similar complaints had been filed against Mr Mainga.
The court noted that the petitioners did not respond to the application or file written submissions despite being given an opportunity to do so.
The judge ultimately found that the petition was too general and that the petitioners had not exhausted the available procedures for addressing their complaints.
“The court finds that the Petition as drafted is bad in law for want of specificity and that the Petitioners have not exhausted the available statutory mechanism for addressing its grievances before approaching this court,” Justice Biomdo ruled.
He consequently allowed the Kenya Railways Corporation Board’s application dated July 24, 2026.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
