Row over KU Vice-Chancellor pick lands in court as Prof. Wainina is set to retire

A legal battle has erupted at Kenyatta University, with an alumnus seeking an urgent court order to bar the institution’s current Vice-Chancellor Professor Paul Kuria Wainanina from influencing the selection of his own successor.

The suit, filed at the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi, alleges that Wainaina has overstepped his authority by orchestrating the creation of “tailor-made” recruitment criteria designed to favour a specific candidate.

The applicant, Lawrence Omondi Chero, contends that with Professor Wainaina’s five-year term set to lapse on January 26, 2026, the Vice-Chancellor has “deliberately engaged in acts that are ultra vires the Universities Act, the University Charter and the universities statutes.”

In a sworn affidavit, Chero states that the Vice-Chancellor established an “illegal committee” in June 2025 to develop the criteria for recruiting the next Vice-Chancellor, a role legally reserved for the University Council and the Public Service Commission.

This committee’s report was subsequently presented to a special meeting of the University Senate on July 15, 2025. Chero’s application highlights that the meeting was called with just one day’s notice and without a disclosed agenda, yet it substantively adopted the proposed criteria.

The applicant now seeks to have this report and the Senate’s approval quashed.

The matter is considered so pressing because a meeting of the University Council, the body with the ultimate appointing authority, is scheduled for November 17, 2025, where the disputed criteria could be ratified.

The core of the legal challenge rests on the specific requirements proposed by the committee. Chero’s affidavit argues that the criteria are “irrational, ultra vires and unreasonable.”

He points to several conditions that deviate from historical precedent, including a requirement for “15 years’ experience in the senior level in leadership and administration” and a stipulation that a candidate must have “served substantively… in the position of Deputy Vice-Chancellor or Principal of a Constituent College for at least a full term of five (5) years.”

Another novel condition is the need for “extensive senior management training, including a leadership course lasting not less than four (4) weeks cumulatively.”

Chero asserts that these stringent requirements, when compared to past Kenyatta University adverts for the position in 2017, 2015, and 2005, as well as to current adverts from other reputable universities, are unfairly restrictive.

“There is an apparent conflict of interest for the 1st Respondent to directly participate in the recruitment of his successor by setting up a criterion for qualification which is designed to edge out other applicants and favour a candidate of his choice,” his affidavit reads.

The application further argues that Prof. Wainaina’s involvement flouts a government circular dated November 23, 2010, which outlines procedures for the reappointment of Chief Executive Officers in state corporations.

The circular stipulates that a CEO wishing to be reappointed must write to the board at least six months before the term ends.

If the board does not recommend renewal, the CEO is to proceed on terminal leave to ensure a smooth transition for their successor.

The applicant suggests that the Vice-Chancellor’s active role in managing the recruitment at the “tail end of his term contravenes” this guidance.

However, minutes from the special Senate meeting reveal that the committee and the Senate itself provided justifications for the enhanced criteria.

The committee, which benchmarked its work against several other public and private universities, stated that its aim was to “strengthen… criteria to reflect recent transformations in higher education globally.”

During the Senate debate, one clarification offered was, “the rationale for experience of at least five (5) years is that for anyone to be accorded position of a vice-chancellor he or she needed to have deputized holders of that position for at least one full term to get a glimpse of what it entails.”

The legal filing seeks several orders, including prohibitory orders to stop Prof. Wainaina from any further participation in the recruitment process and to prevent the University Council from acting on the Senate’s recommendations. It also requests that the entire process be halted to safeguard the autonomy of the Council and the Public Service Commission.

The outcome of this case is poised to have significant implications for the leadership transition at one of Kenya’s largest universities.

With the Council meeting imminent, the court’s decision on whether to grant the urgent orders will determine if the recruitment proceeds under the contested framework or is sent back to the drawing board, free from the influence of the outgoing Vice-Chancellor.

The court’s ruling will also set a notable precedent on the interpretation of governance and conflict of interest rules within Kenyan public universities.