DNK International By Elizabeth Were,Milimani Court.
A Nairobi resident has moved to the High Court seeking an order compelling Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Capt. William Kipkemboi Ruto, to explain the legal authority under which he continues to occupy the office.
Felix Otieno, through Sigano & Omollo Advocates, claims Capt. Ruto’s three year appointment expired on March 9, 2026, and that there is no publicly available evidence of a lawful extension, renewal or reappointment.
The petition, filed before the Constitutional and Human Rights Division at the Milimani Law Courts, asks the court to determine “by what lawful authority” Capt. Ruto continues to exercise the functions of KPA chief executive.
According to Otieno, Capt. Ruto was appointed for a three year term beginning March 10, 2023, meaning his tenure ended on March 9, 2026.
The petitioner contends that no legal instrument extending or renewing the appointment has been gazetted or disclosed.
The dispute has also raised questions about the law governing KPA following the enactment of the Government Owned Enterprises Act, 2025, which came into force on December 5, 2025, and repealed the Kenya Ports Authority Act.
Otieno argues that under the new legislation, the authority to appoint KPA’s chief executive lies with the corporation’s Board of Directors and must follow a competitive recruitment process.
“Since 5th December 2025 the only authority competent to appoint or reappoint the Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Respondent has been its Board of Directors, acting under sections 18 and 22 of the Act and following a competitive recruitment process,” the petitioner states.
He further claims that KPA does not currently have a properly constituted board capable of making such an appointment.
An official company search conducted on September 2, 2026, is cited in the petition as showing that KPA PLC had only two directors. Otieno claims the records did not show an independent director or a representative of the Ministry responsible for roads and transport.
The petitioner also says Capt. Ruto’s name does not appear in the company’s records in any capacity.
A key issue before the court is the interpretation of a transitional provision in the 2025 legislation, which states that an incumbent chief executive “shall subject to the provisions of this Act, serve as the Chief Executive Officer.”
Otieno argues that the clause could not have automatically granted Capt. Ruto a fresh tenure.
“Read subject to the provisions of the Act as its own words require, it preserved that unexpired portion and no more,” he argues.
According to the petitioner, interpreting the transitional provision as creating a new term would effectively bypass the Act’s competitive recruitment requirements and other safeguards governing the appointment of chief executives of government-owned enterprises.
Otieno is asking the High Court to issue a quo warranto order requiring Capt. Ruto to demonstrate the legal authority under which he continues to hold and exercise the office.
He is also seeking a declaration that any extension, renewal or reappointment undertaken without a lawfully constituted board is “null and void ab initio.”
The petitioner wants the court to allow a suitably qualified person to temporarily oversee KPA’s affairs pending the recruitment and appointment of a new chief executive in accordance with the law.
He has warned that the dispute over the legality of the CEO’s tenure could have implications beyond the office itself, potentially affecting decisions relating to port infrastructure, public assets, procurement, borrowing, concessions and employment.
In a Certificate of Urgency, lawyer Justus Omollo urged the court to give the matter priority, arguing that continued exercise of executive powers by an office-holder whose tenure is under challenge could result in “institutional uncertainty and potential prejudice to the public interest.”
The petitioner has also asked for interim orders stopping KPA from paying Capt. Ruto’s salary and allowances pending the determination of the case.
Otieno maintains that the orders sought are not intended to interfere with the day-to-day operations of the Kenya Ports Authority, but to ensure that its affairs are managed in accordance with the law while the court determines the legality of the CEO’s continued tenure.
[DNK-International@September 9,2026]
