A High Court has stopped the government from appointing a 23-year-old man as a chief in Mandera County after raising serious questions about how he was selected despite failing to meet the advertised minimum age of 35.
Justice David Mburu barred the Office of the President and the Ministry of Interior and National Administration from gazetting, appointing or confirming Mohamed Hussein Diis as Chief II of Hareri Location, pending the hearing and determination of a petition challenging his selection.
The case was filed by Mohamed Hared Issack, 37, who was among four candidates shortlisted for the position.
Issack argued that the recruitment process was unfair because Diis was recommended for the job despite being 23, contrary to the qualifications set out in the recruitment advertisement.
The position had been re-advertised on May 14, 2026, with applicants required to be Kenyan citizens, have at least a KCSE mean grade of C (Plain), possess relevant professional qualifications and be at least 35 years old.
Other requirements included being a resident of the location, having a certificate of good conduct and possessing computer skills.
The four shortlisted candidates were interviewed on June 26, 2026, before the Deputy County Commissioner recommended Diis for appointment on July 20.
Issack told the court that he met the age requirement and had the necessary qualifications but was unfairly overlooked in favour of a younger candidate.
He also alleged nepotism, favouritism and corruption in the recruitment of chiefs in Hareri and other locations, claiming that some shortlisted candidates were children of former chiefs.
However, Diis defended his selection, saying he emerged as the best candidate during the interviews, scoring 61.2 per cent against Issack’s 60 per cent.
He said he had attained a KCSE mean grade of C+ (Plus), while Issack and the other candidates had scored C- (Minus), below the advertised academic requirement.
Diis also told the court that he was a resident of Hareri and had participated in community development initiatives as a youth leader.
Age requirement sparks dispute
On the age question, he acknowledged that he was below the advertised minimum but argued that the requirement was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
He said recruitment panels in several locations in Mandera had encountered difficulties attracting applicants who met all the requirements and had consequently sought permission to relax the age and academic qualifications.
He further argued that a previous court decision had declared the minimum age requirement for appointment as a chief discriminatory.
But Issack maintained that the recruitment panel could not simply ignore qualifications it had published to the public.
He argued that if the government intended to change the requirements, it should have issued a fresh advertisement to give other interested candidates an equal opportunity to apply.
In his November 5 ruling, Justice Mburu noted that the recruitment panel’s minutes showed that members had discussed seeking permission to waive some qualifications.
However, the judge said there was no evidence that the required permission had been granted.
The judge also noted that neither the interview panel nor the appointing authority had demonstrated that they had the power to waive the advertised qualifications.
“Neither has any provision of the applicable Scheme of Service or recruitment framework been brought to the attention of this Court expressly authorizing such a waiver,” Justice Mburu said.
He added that although the interview minutes referred to requests for waivers, there was no evidence that an age waiver had formally been approved for the Hareri recruitment exercise.
Court questions recruitment process
The judge expressed concern that the government agencies responsible for the recruitment had failed to file responses explaining why Diis was considered for the position despite not meeting the advertised age requirement.
The court said public institutions must follow the qualifications they announce when recruiting, unless the requirements are lawfully changed through a transparent process.
Justice Mburu observed that allowing the appointment to proceed before the case was heard could undermine the court proceedings.
He acknowledged concerns that Hareri residents needed a substantive chief to coordinate local administration and security matters, particularly amid adverse weather and security challenges.
However, he said the need for continuity in local administration had to be balanced against the requirement for fairness and accountability in public appointments.
The judge concluded that the recruitment process raised serious questions about equal opportunities and merit in public service appointments.
He also found that the respondents had breached constitutional requirements on fair competition, representation of different communities and equal opportunities in public service.
The court consequently restrained the government from proceeding with Diis’s appointment until the main petition is heard and determined.
The parties were directed to take steps to ensure the petition is heard without unnecessary delay, while the issue of costs was left to be decided alongside the main case.
The ruling does not determine who should ultimately get the job but temporarily prevents Diis’s appointment as the court examines the recruitment process.
