Court quashes UoN senior management jobs advertisement
The entrance to the University of Nairobi
The management conflicts that have dogged the University of Nairobi (UoN) for the past two years have taken a new turn after the Labour Relations and Employment Court stopped the recruitment of 24 senior management positions that the university council had advertised.
Although the case was filed by a member of the public, Julius Mutemi, it is a win for the University Academic Staff Union (UASU) which has challenged, in a different case, the establishment of a chief operating officer at the university.
It is one of the positions declared irregular by Justice Byram Ongaya.
Mr Bryan Ouma has held it since July 12, 2012. He has been in an acting capacity but the advertisement sought to regularise the position to appoint a substantive officer. The court ruled that the university's council embarked on creating positions that it did not have the power to.
However, the court observed that the other positions contained in the advertisement “appear to be the ones contemplated to vest in the council as per Article 22 of the charter”.
The ruling comes barely a month after the High Court declared that the appointment of the council was illegal but declined to order its removal, saying that such a move would disrupt the operations of the university. The case was filed by UASU.
The cabinet secretary for Education Ezekiel Machogu appointed the council in May last year. It is chaired by Prof Amukowa Anangwe.
The university council was involved in differences with vice-chancellor Stephen Kiama, a tiff that played out in public last year.
The position of the chief operating officer was among the contentious issues. The VC applied for a six-month leave which he later cancelled after just one month and returned to run the university.
“It is not clear if the chief operating officer is aimed at replacing deputy vice-chancellor at Grade 17 and if that’s the case as urged for the applicant and not rebutted for the respondent, then it appears to the Court that such creation of an office to abolish one expressly provided for in the charter would therefore require compliance with the procedure in Section 22 A of the Act,” said Justice Ongaya.
In its submission, the council argued that the position of the chief operating officer “is central to all the respondent’s directorates in the centralization and delivery of professional support services”.
“Where the charter has expressly created position such as the vice chancellor, deputy vice-chancellor or registrars and directors, then the council cannot abolish such positions without amending the charter as such abolition would amount to an irregular variation of the charter,” Justice Ongaya observed.
He ruled that legal procedures that provide for the alteration of a charter of a university were not followed in creating the new position.
Last year, Prof Anangwe extended Mr Ouma’s tenure and directed that he should discharge his mandate “without hindrance”. Four days later, Prof Kiama wrote to the council requesting to go on leave citing fatigue and accumulation of untaken leave days. He would surprise the council by making a return after one month, a move the council opposed.
In his appointment letter, Prof Anangwe said that Mr Ouma would earn an “acting allowance due to a divisional head alongside commensurate benefits”.
