The Employment and Labour Relations Court has dismissed a petition challenging Bruno Mugambi Linyiru’s appointment as the Director-General of the Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA).
In a judgement, Justice Hellen Wasilwa said that there were no valid reasons that should bar Dr Linyiru from taking office as the Director- General of the authority.
“In appointing the 1st interested party (Dr Linyiru), I do not find any unconstitutionalism or impropriety employed. The 3rd respondent (AFA) did due diligence and even the 2nd interested party (Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission) affirmed that there was no ongoing prosecution against the 1st interested party,” the court said in the April 28, 2025 decision.
“It is therefore my finding that the appointment of the 1st interested party (Dr Linyiru) was proper and there is no reason that would bar his appointment or continued service in the position of the Director-General of the 3rd respondent.”
The petition was brought by Jared Abuya in early 2024 arguing that Dr Linyiru was unfit to hold public office due to unresolved corruption charges dating back to 2015.
He argued that appointing Dr Linyiru to the helm of AFA, a State corporation with significant influence over Kenya’s agricultural sector was unethical and a contravention of Chapter Six of the Constitution of Kenya on leadership and integrity.
He relied on a pending corruption case and accused the government of flouting public trust by placing Dr Linyiru in a leadership position while he was still under suspicion.
He brought the suit against the AFA, Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, and the Attorney-General with the EACC as an interested party.
In an earlier decision in April 2024, the labour court had suspended the appointment of Dr Linyiru to head AFA pending the determination of Mr Abuya’s suit.
The EACC confirmed to the court that Dr Linyiru had been charged with economic crimes related to procurement irregularities during his tenure at another State agency.
The respondents told the court that while Dr Linyiru had once faced charges, the matter was withdrawn in 2017 and had not been reinstated since.
They emphasised the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence, arguing that holding unproven allegations over someone’s head indefinitely was both unjust and against fair administrative action.
They added that Dr Linyuri’s appointment was transparent and by the law. They insisted that no active investigation or prosecution was pending against Dr Linyiru and that he had cleared all required vetting procedures before the appointment.
Justice Wasilwa said that the court could not sanction a practice where individuals could be barred from public service over charges that had not been actively pursued or proven.
She said, “As indicated above there is no indication that the 1st interested party (Dr Linyuri) is still under investigation. It is also clear that the charges against him were withdrawn in 2017 and no fresh charges have been preferred against him. The question then is how long the life of the 1st interested party should come to a standstill as the Anti-Corruption Commission mules over prosecuting him.”
