The Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (Kippra) faces a legal challenge over its ongoing external recruitment of 43 senior officers, including directors and managers.
An employee has moved to court claiming that the State-owned policy think tank unlawfully sidelined qualified staff and breached its own hiring rules.
In a case filed at the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi, Moses Njenga alleges that Kippra’s executive director bypassed mandatory internal recruitment procedures by advertising senior positions externally without first considering employees.
The dispute stems from a recruitment advertisement published on December 16, 2025, in two newspapers, inviting external applicants for 43 vacancies, including directors, policy analysts, managers, and a corporation secretary (legal).
Mr Njenga contends that Kippra, which operates under the Treasury, disregarded its Human Resource Policy and Procedures Manual.
According to the manual, adopted in January 2020, vacancies from grades KIP 4 to KIP 10 must first be filled through internal promotions and advertisements before external hiring is considered.
The policy mandates that management exhaust all qualified internal candidates before opening positions to outsiders.
The legal dispute highlights the tension between internal career progression and open recruitment practices in public institutions.
Mr Njenga argues that none of the 43 positions were advertised internally beforehand, effectively locking out eligible staff.
‘The decision was premature and illegal,’ Mr Njenga states in his court filings, asserting that Kippra lacks justifiable reason to skip employees.
He further claims that no internal assessment was conducted to determine whether qualified candidates existed within the institute before the external advertisement was published. The lawsuit names Kippra’s executive director and the Attorney-General as respondents.
Mr Njenga also alleges that the recruitment decision violated his legitimate expectation as an employee, citing assurances that internal procedures would be followed.
‘I had the legitimate expectation that the respondent would adhere to the Human Resource manual and ensure internal recruitment was exhausted first,’ he states in his affidavit.
Before seeking court intervention, Mr Njenga attempted to resolve the matter internally by raising concerns with his supervisor, the head of the department, and the human resources office.
However, he claims these efforts were ignored, prompting legal action. He now seeks interim orders to halt the ongoing recruitment pending the court’s determination of the case.
‘The respondent purported to exercise discretion by bypassing mandatory internal recruitment methods,’ the court documents state, emphasising that the decision unfairly deprived staff of their rightful priority under the institute’s policy.
Kippra, established under statute, plays a pivotal role in shaping public policy and advising the government on economic and social matters.
Its executive director oversees daily operations in consultation with the board, but Mr Njenga argues that this mandate must still comply with internal policies and the Fair Administrative Action Act.
The matter is scheduled for mention on February 16, 2026, where the court will determine whether to grant Mr Njenga’s requests for interim orders and further directions on the suit.
The outcome could set a precedent on the enforceability of internal HR policies in public bodies, reinforcing accountability in recruitment processes.
In his judicial review application, Mr Njenga seeks orders to quash the advertisement and prohibit KIPPRA from proceeding with external recruitment without adhering to due process.
He maintains that the decision breached principles of legality, fairness, and reasonableness.
‘The decision is tainted with illegality and procedural unfairness,’ the petition asserts, arguing that inviting external candidates before exhausting internal options constituted an abuse of discretion and an error of law.
Internal promotion policies are designed to reward experience, retain institutional knowledge, and motivate employees.
Deviations from such policies often trigger disputes and litigation, as seen in this case. Mr Njenga further requests court orders compelling KIPPRA to restart the recruitment process by first conducting internal promotions and advertisements.
The case highlights broader concerns about governance and compliance within state agencies, particularly regarding adherence to internal policies in recruitment.