A fresh dispute has unfolded at Kenyatta University after an alumnus moved to court seeking urgent orders to block the institution’s vice-chancellor, Prof. Paul Kuria Wainaina, from participating in the recruitment of the next VC. The petition, filed at the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi, accuses Prof. Wainaina of attempting to improperly shape the succession process as his own term nears its end.
The applicant, Lawrence Omondi Chero, argues that the vice-chancellor acted outside his legal authority when he allegedly convened and supervised a committee tasked with drafting new recruitment criteria for the next vice-chancellor. According to Chero, this function belongs exclusively to the University Council and the Public Service Commission, not the outgoing officeholder.
In his affidavit, Chero claims that Prof. Wainaina’s term expires on January 26, 2026, yet he has taken an active role in establishing eligibility requirements for his successor. He alleges that in June 2025, the vice-chancellor created an “unauthorized committee,” which later presented its report to a special Senate meeting held on July 15, 2025. The meeting, which was called on short notice and without a clear agenda, reportedly adopted the new criteria without adequate scrutiny.
The matter has been escalated urgently because the University Council—the final authority in the recruitment process—is scheduled to meet on November 17, 2025, where the contested criteria could be formally approved.
Chero’s petition challenges several of the proposed requirements, describing them as “restrictive and unreasonable.” Among the disputed qualifications are 15 years of senior administrative experience, prior substantive service as a deputy vice-chancellor or principal of a constituent college for at least one full five-year term, and mandatory leadership training of no less than four cumulative weeks.
He argues that these conditions are unusual and inconsistent with past Kenyatta University advertisements as well as standards used by other leading universities. The affidavit further claims that the criteria appear specifically tailored to narrow the field of applicants, thereby giving an unfair advantage to an unnamed preferred candidate.
According to Chero, this amounts to a conflict of interest:
“It is improper for the outgoing vice-chancellor to influence the hiring of his successor by designing qualification criteria suited to a candidate of his choice.”
The application also cites a government circular issued on November 23, 2010, which outlines rules for the reappointment of CEOs in state corporations. The circular states that a CEO seeking renewal must request it six months in advance and, if not recommended for reappointment, must proceed on terminal leave. Chero argues that the vice-chancellor’s continued involvement in the succession process contradicts the spirit of this directive.
However, minutes from the Senate meeting indicate that both the committee and the Senate defended the strengthened requirements. They argued that the enhanced qualifications reflect global trends and the evolving demands of university leadership. One Senate member is quoted as saying that a full five-year term of senior leadership experience ensures candidates understand the complexities of managing a modern university.
Chero is now asking the court to issue orders barring Prof. Wainaina from any role in the recruitment process, preventing the Council from acting on the Senate’s recommendations, and suspending the entire process until it can proceed independently and lawfully.
The court’s decision, expected soon due to the tight timelines, is likely to shape the leadership transition at Kenyatta University. The ruling could also establish an important precedent on conflict-of-interest policies and governance standards within Kenya’s public higher education system.
