The Employment and Labour Relations Court has upheld Dr Purity Muthoni Ngina’s appointment as chief executive officer of the National Gender and Equality Commission (NGEC) despite a qualification gap.
The court found that at the time of her appointment in July 2024, Dr Ngina did not meet the Commission’s 2019 Career Progression Guidelines requirement for more than 15 years of public administration experience.
Justice Jemimah Keli nevertheless ruled that she met the lower statutory requirements under Section 21 of the National Gender and Equality Commission Act, making the appointment lawful. The court said the statute was superior to the internal guidelines and therefore there was no basis to invalidate her appointment.
The decision followed a petition by Senator Okiya Omtatah, who challenged Dr Ngina’s recruitment and appointment alleging that NGEC manipulated the job advertisement and that it lowered the qualifications to favour her.
He also claimed that the Commission failed to advertise the vacancy through a newspaper with nationwide circulation and allowed a conflicted person to participate in the recruitment process.
The case was centered on whether NGEC could rely on statutory minimums while its guidelines set higher requirements for the CEO.
The 2019 Career Progression Guidelines required a CEO to have more than 15 years’ public-administration experience, including 10 years at management level, as well as specified academic and leadership qualifications.
The NGEC Act requires citizenship, a recognised university degree, at least 10 years’ proven management experience, extensive public administration experience and compliance with Chapter Six of the Constitution.
The Commission and Dr Ngina argued that Section 21 of the NGEC Act set the applicable statutory qualifications and that she satisfied them. NGEC said 74 people applied, six were shortlisted and Dr Ngina emerged successful after interviews.
Justice Keli found that Dr Ngina graduated in December 2013 and began her first post-graduation job at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology in 2014.
The court therefore rejected NGEC’s claim that Dr Ngina had satisfied the 15-year guideline, but found that she satisfied the statutory test.
“I find it is best practice for the employer to apply its own policies developed further to the statutory provisions. However, the statute is superior,” Justice Keli said.
“The second respondent (Dr Ngina), having met the statutory qualifications, I find no basis to intervene in her employment,” she added.
The court relied on the Act’s Section 21, which requires competitive recruitment and sets the statutory qualifications.
The court found Dr Ngina had a Bachelor of Education (Science) degree, a Master of Science in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Biomathematics.
It found that she had demonstrated management experience since 2014 and met the statutory qualifications.
Mr Omtatah had argued that the recruitment advert deliberately reduced the requirements by leaving out key qualifications contained in the 2019 guidelines.
He also challenged the advertisement’s placement, citing NGEC’s requirement for vacancies to appear in at least one daily newspaper with national circulation.
NGEC advertised the position on its website, social media platforms and through a MyGov insert in one of the dailies.
The Commission said that the guidelines were internal advisory documents that could not override legislation.
It also said Dr Ngina had more than 10 years of management and public-sector experience, including work as an assistant lecturer, researcher, consultant and board member.
On the leadership-course requirement, NGEC said the Public Service Commission had suspended the requirement in March 2020 and restored it only in May 2025.
The court also rejected an allegation that Dr Margaret Karungaru, a member of the Commission, had a conflict of interest because of an alleged relationship with Dr Ngina.
“There was no evidence of the alleged conflict of interest,” the court said.
The petition also questioned whether the recruitment was open and competitive. The court found that the advertisement met the law and the selection process complied with the Constitutional standards.
