Category: Business Daily

Vodacom has completed its acquisition of an additional 15 percent stake in Safaricom, days after the Court of Appeal lifted orders that had blocked the State’s Sh204.3 billion sale.

The South African telecommunications giant said on Tuesday that the transaction has closed, increasing its stake in the Nairobi Securities Exchange-listed operator to 55 percent and giving it majority control.

The deal, first announced in December, was completed three days after the Court of Appeal cleared the transaction, paving the way for the National Treasury to receive Sh204.3 billion from the sale of its 15 percent stake.

Under the transaction, the Treasury will also receive a Sh40.2 billion dividend top-up, structured as a loan backed by Kenya’s remaining 20 percent stake in Safaricom.

‘This is a landmark moment for Vodacom, for Safaricom, and for the communities we serve across East Africa. Acquiring majority ownership in Safaricom strengthens our position as a market leader, while at the same time unlocking new opportunities to drive digital and financial inclusion at scale in Kenya and Ethiopia,’ Vodacom Group CEO Shameel Joosub said.

Many organisations still treat communications as a function that explains decisions rather than helps shape them. Teams are brought in once the strategy is set, the policy approved, or the programme designed. At that point, communications becomes a finishing service, not a strategic one.

By then, the opportunity to raise stakeholder concerns, test assumptions, or anticipate reactions has often passed. Sometimes, that ends up being costly to an organisation.

Thankfully, that is changing in many organisations globally. A recent Wall Street Journal article showed that communications is moving from a support function to a C-suite seat. Unlike previously when communications professionals were relegated to the periphery, organisations are now ensuring communications teams are front and centre in the C-suite.

This is partly attributed to fears by many CEOs that even the smallest misstep could easily spiral into a corporate disaster. The leaders now want better control of the corporate narrative at the very top.

A 2025 research by executive recruiter firm Korn Ferry showed that 47 percent of chief communications officers in Fortune 500 companies now report directly to the CEO, up from 40 percent two years earlier.

At first glance, this looks like a communications story, but it is also evidence that organisations are rethinking where trust, reputation, and stakeholder confidence sit in strategic decision-making.

Nearly half have made the move. More than half have not. In Kenya, the proportion that has not made the move is almost certainly higher.

The shift did not happen overnight. Three forces converged. The explosion of digital channels fragmented attention and gave audiences more power to tune out, push back, and amplify on their own terms.

The erosion of institutional trust across governments, corporations, and media raised the stakes for every public statement.

The Covid pandemic then compressed years of change into months, forcing organisations to communicate under pressure with audiences who had both the tools and the motivation to fact-check everything. Many of the organisations that emerged strongest from this period shared one characteristic: a clear and consistent voice.

If communications enters the conversation only after decisions have been made, your organisation may be operating with an incomplete view of risk. At a time when trust shapes who people buy from, work for, fund, and believe, that may prove very costly.

In Kenya, the uncertainty that surrounded the rollout of SHA is a good example of how quickly questions of trust, understanding, and stakeholder confidence can become central to the success of a major reform. The lesson here is that execution without influence will not protect reputation when it counts.

For leaders, the starting point is simpler than restructuring an organisational chart.

Look at your last major decision and ask a straightforward question: At what point did communications enter the conversation? If the answer is after the strategy was approved, the policy signed off, or the programme designed, you may be bringing the function in too late.

Giving communications a seat at the table is not a privilege; it is a precondition for good decisions.

The Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) has declined to extend the deadline for filing annual tax returns despite complaints from a section of taxpayers that they were unable to log into the taxman’s online filing platform, iTax.

In a public notice, KRA asked Kenyans to file their annual tax returns before midnight on June 30, 2026, to avoid penalties for late filing.

“All PIN holders with an Income Tax Obligation who are yet to file their 2025 Income Tax Returns are reminded to do so immediately and avoid the last-minute rush before the filing deadline of midnight, Tuesday, June 30, 2026,” KRA said in a public notice published on Monday.

“No extension of the filing deadline will be granted. Taxpayers who fail to file their 2025 Income Tax Returns by the due date will be liable to the applicable penalties and may be subject to default assessments in accordance with the law,” it added.

Several taxpayers said they struggled to submit their mandatory annual income tax returns through the iTax system ahead of the June 30 deadline. KRA officials attributed the problem to increased traffic on the platform.

Some taxpayers encountered broken links and error messages when attempting to access the portal, leaving many frustrated and fearing they would miss the statutory deadline. Under Kenyan law, taxpayers who fail to file their annual returns by June 30 risk late-filing penalties and, in some cases, default tax assessments by KRA.

The congestion is not new. Since iTax was rolled out in 2013, the electronic platform has routinely experienced heavy traffic in the final days of the filing season as millions of taxpayers wait until the last minute to comply.

Experts say KRA needs to upgrade its system rather than continue mounting public awareness campaigns urging taxpayers to file early.

Robert Waruiru, the managing partner and head of tax at Ichiban Tax and Business Advisory LLP, reckons that the Finance Act, 2026, partly tried to address this problem by staggering the tax return filing periods so that all A PIN holders, that is one for individuals, file by April 30, while all P PIN holders, comprising non-individual taxpayers, file by June 30.

“Whilst this may help, if one considers the PIN registration profile, I think we will likely still have a problem. Of the 22.3 million registered PINs, assuming only 20 percent are P PINs, it means we will still have heavy traffic in April next year,” said Waruiru.

“The long-term solution is a major upgrade of iTax, which, as you know, is about 11 years old,” added the tax expert.

KRA listed three other channels through which taxpayers can file their returns besides iTax. They include WhatsApp, eCitizen and a USSD code.

Read: Preach tax, skip it: Puzzle of Ruto party’s unpaid SHA, income tax, housing levy millions

Social media platforms were awash with complaints from frustrated taxpayers. Some posted screenshots showing they could not access the portal, while others said the system repeatedly timed out or failed to load after they entered their credentials.

Others appealed to KRA to extend the filing deadline, arguing that the outage was beyond their control.

Kenya requires every holder of a KRA PIN with an income tax obligation-including those with no taxable income-to file an annual return. The country has millions of registered taxpayers, making the June filing deadline one of KRA’s busiest compliance periods each year.

Previous attempts to abolish mandatory annual returns for certain taxpayers have been shelved after the tax authority argued that the requirement remains a critical compliance and data collection tool.

Is the future a set of unexpected events or can it be managed, planned or somehow influenced by our actions today? To paraphrase a diplomat who was not very diplomatic in his assessment of our 2017 general elections, do choices have consequences?

For instance, most of our political parties are built around individual profiles and not political ideology.

We then act surprised that they turn out weak and transient. In successive electoral cycles, we consolidate the vote by mobilising tribe against imaginary enemies, often other tribes. By defining others as our enemies, we force them to become, then act surprised at the outcome.

On the policy front, the debate hardly goes beyond our choice words for each other. For instance, we ignore the fact that our economy cannot carry large budget deficits indefinitely without a reset of the fiscal imbalance.

Then we act surprised that domestic public debt is crowding out the private sector from the credit markets, resulting in sluggish economic activity, lower than expected taxes, and a vicious cycle.

My critique is not new. Alvin Toffler proposed, in the 1970 best-selling book Future Shock, that modern humans suffer too much change in too short a period of time. That change, he argued, overwhelms us, leaving people disconnected and suffering from stress and psychological disorientation. He claimed that the majority of social problems are symptoms that condition.

Toffler posited three stages of development of society and production: agrarian, industrial, and post-industrial. Each phase develops its own ideology to explain reality. That ideology affects all the spheres that make up a civilisation: technology, social, information, and power patterns. John Githongo critiqued the ideology of our time, terming it, Our Turn to Eat in Michela Wrong’s book by the same name.

Today, technological and social advancements are so rapid that the human adaptive mechanism struggles to keep up, leading to a profound sense of disorientation. The large volume of new information, data, and choices available paralyse the human decision-making process, causing individuals to feel exhausted and overwhelmed.

We are suffering information overload, Toffler claimed. And that was before the internet, social media and the now ubiquitous mobile phones.

Now, everything – products, jobs, places, values, and even interpersonal relationships – has become temporary and easily disposable, leading to a lack of deep-rooted permanence. As social ties loosen, people develop transient, modular relationships.

We interact for specific, often transactional purposes, rather than forming deep bonds. We are nomadic workers, constantly adapting to new environments.

Modern life bombards individuals with unprecedented novel experiences and endless choices. While choice is necessary for freedom, an excess of novelty creates cognitive and emotional overload.

Toffler argued that rather than rejecting progress, individuals and institutions must build future-shock absorbers. These might include personal coping strategies, setting up environmental screens for new technologies, and social futurism to help humans take control of their own evolution.

Toffler was critiquing society not just for being surprised by its own outcomes, but for its complete failure to anticipate and prepare for them.

Though this was 56 years ago, it sounds very much like modern Kenya. Two senior clerics and I thought the Gen Z revolt akin to a miracle.

Never before had it been possible to mobilise politically at such a large scale. But in hindsight, is this not to be expected, given technology?

The recently adopted zero-based budgeting holds the promise of forcing institutions out of the comfortable assumption that the future is a slightly faster version of the present. This assumption leaves institutions blind to radical, structural shifts.

On their part, politicians and planners must stop merely reacting to crises after they occur, and use foresight to guide technological and social growth.

Still, for every new technology, we should look beyond its short-term economic benefit and evaluate its long-term psychological and cultural fallout. Our democracy cannot survive if we leave the future to chance. We must actively democratize the planning process to prevent collective panic – that is why the Constitution makes public participation mandatory.

The future is not an unexpected event. It must be systematically managed, so we must banish the illusion of continuity, reactive leadership, and technological blindness.

That is why debate on the development trajectory of our beloved republic is critical, and urgent. I hold the data backed view that we can achieve high-income status in this generation. If you think we cannot go to Singapore, where do you propose that we head to?

The World Bank Group is offering Kenya a helping hand in unlocking a fresh funding programme from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in a rare show of openness to mediation from the multilateral lender.

The Treasury omitted the IMF funding in the national budgets to 2030 following uncertainty about whether fresh talks tied to tough conditions could unlock multi-billion shilling loans.

However, the World Bank said the benefit of the IMF programme to Kenya goes beyond loans, arguing that policing from the fund and its reforms agenda are critical for the country.

The multilateral lender said it was in talks with the IMF in what is known as the Article IV consultation on the health of the Kenyan economy.

The IMF recently shared a draft of its governance diagnostic assessment with Kenya, designed to ?flag governance weaknesses and corruption vulnerabilities.

Fund-supported programme

Feedback from the government and the Article IV consultations are expected to untangle negotiations for a new fund-supported programme.

The World Bank, which approved the disbursement of a Sh97 billion ($750 million) loan to Kenya yesterday, says the presence of an IMF fund is crucial at a time when the country’s economic outlook is facing considerable risks.

Kenya has lacked IMF support since March 2025, when the fund terminated a standing arrangement, denying the country Sh110 billion ($850 million) in financing. Fresh discussions have been protracted.

‘Delays in reaching a new IMF programme could weaken the credibility of the fiscal framework,’ said the World Bank in a report accompanying its fresh disbursement.

‘The World Bank and IMF continue to work closely to coordinate policy dialogue, analysis, and technical assistance,’ added the multilateral lender in a report that gave the IMF funding hitch prominence.

The push for a new arrangement with the IMF is seen as more important from a reform perspective, where the fund would instil discipline in spending and revenue mobilisation beyond financial support.

Kenya has not included any new funding from the IMF in the budget for the year starting today, escaping tough lending conditions attached to the fund’s support, including higher taxes, job freezes and spending cuts.

This has seen Kenya approach fresh IMF talks with caution after the termination of the earlier loan facility due to breached conditions.

Reliance on the World Bank

The World Bank sees risks to Kenya’s macroeconomic outlook, including a prolonged conflict in the Middle East, which could further raise fuel and fertiliser import costs and dampen diaspora remittances.

The August 2027 General Election is expected to increase political risks and dim fiscal consolidation efforts.

‘Should financing conditions tighten or refinancing costs rise, private sector credit would be crowded out, investor confidence could weaken, and the anticipated recovery in domestic demand could lose momentum,’ the World Bank added.

Kenya’s IMF-supported programme lapsed in March 2025, and Kenyan authorities remain in discussions on a potential successor arrangement.

The IMF had approved a Sh310.8 billion ($2.4 billion) Extended Credit Facility and Extended Fund Facility (ECF/EFF) programme and a further Sh71.4 billion ($551.4 million) Resilience and Sustainability Fund (RSF) over 48 months starting in February 2021.

Eight reviews were completed in the period to March 2025, with cumulative disbursements standing at Sh404 billion ($3.12 billion) for the ECF/EFF and Sh23.3 billion ($180.4 million) for the RSF.

In March 2025, the programme lapsed on a mutual agreement as the IMF cited breaches, leaving roughly Sh110 billion ($850 million) undisbursed.

Kenya has deepened its reliance on the World Bank, forecasting to tap loans worth Sh170.5 billion for every fiscal year over the next four budget cycles from Sh129.8 billion in the current period.

The IMF had dished out painful conditions in the wake of its surging loans post Covid-19 pandemic, including the need to increase tax revenues, cut budget deficits, and restructure state-owned enterprises.

World Bank loans, which tend to be long-term, often carry less stringent conditions when compared to IMF aid, which is short- to medium-term and tackles immediate economic instability.

The government has unveiled a Sh1.08 trillion agriculture investment plan that hinges on the private sector financing nearly half the cost, marking one of Kenya’s biggest bets yet on private capital to transform farming.

The five-year blueprint seeks to mobilise Sh486 billion from businesses and investors while national and county governments contribute 35 percent, reflecting shrinking fiscal space and growing pressure on public finances.

If successful, the programme is poised to reshape Kenya’s food production, create more than two million jobs, raise farmers’ incomes, and reduce dependence on fragmented donor-funded agricultural projects.

‘I am calling on the commitment of the County Governments, through the Council of Governors, to achieve this goal,’ Agriculture Principal Secretary Jonathan Mueke said while launching the plan in Nairobi.

‘The private sector is expected to contribute 45 percent, and the development and bilateral partners’ share is 20 percent of the total investment envelope.’

Proposed financing structure

The investment strategy, known as the National Agri-food Systems Investment Plan 2026-2030, was unveiled during the first day of the Financing Agri-Food Systems Sustainably (FINAS) Summit in Nairobi.

The proposed financing structure marks a departure from previous programmes that relied largely on public expenditure and donor-backed development projects.

The strategy comes as Kenya struggles to balance competing budget priorities amid rising debt-servicing costs and tighter revenue collections that have constrained development spending. Agriculture is Kenya’s largest employer. It supports millions of livelihoods directly and indirectly despite decades of underinvestment in irrigation, storage, processing and agricultural financing.

The sector contributes about one-fifth of the gross domestic product directly, with an even bigger contribution once manufacturing, transport and trade are factored in.

Yet agricultural productivity continues to be undermined by factors such as erratic weather, limited irrigation, expensive financing, fragmented markets, and post-harvest losses.

Every time floods wash away roads, drought decimates livestock or disease outbreaks strike, Kenya spends billions of shillings responding to the crisis.

But where does that money come from? The bulk of it has come after disasters have already struck, through emergency budget reallocations, supplementary budgets, donor appeals and humanitarian assistance.

The National Treasury is planning to change that model going forward. Through Disaster Risk Financing Strategy 2026-2030, it promises a policy shift from reacting to disasters to preparing financially before they happen.

The strategy affects not just mandarins at the Treasury, but every Kenyan taxpayer because disasters are increasingly threatening economic growth, public services and national development.

Here are the key questions and answers you need to know about the new approach.

Why is Kenya changing how it handles disasters?

Because disasters are becoming more frequent, more expensive and more complex.

Kenya is no longer dealing only with recurring droughts. The country increasingly faces severe floods, disease outbreaks, landslides, pest invasions, fires, building collapses and even technological and security-related disasters.

The Treasury estimates that more than 30 percent of Kenya’s economy and over 40 percent of employment depend on sectors highly exposed to these risks, particularly agriculture.

Recent disasters have exposed how vulnerable the economy has become.Covid-19 scourge, desert locust invasion and prolonged drought pushed economic growth down from five percent in 2019 to a measly 0.3 percent in 2020. The devastating floods of 2023 and 2024 then caused losses, which Treasury has estimated Sh187.82 billion.

How does Kenya pay for disasters?

When disaster strikes, the Treasury, through the National Assembly, often shifts money from other programmes, approves supplementary budgets or appeals for donor support.

Through the strategy, the Treasury acknowledges this reactive approach creates several problems.

This is because emergency funding often arrives too late, money is usually insufficient and development projects are delayed because allocated cash is diverted.

In the strategy, the Treasury says Kenya’s financing has remained heavily dependent on post-disaster budget reallocations and humanitarian assistance instead of predictable financing arranged in advance.

So what is changing in the strategy?

Instead of asking where money will come from after disaster strikes, the Treasury wants to arrange that financing before they occur. This is called pre-arranged disaster financing.

Under this approach, funding mechanisms will be in place before floods, droughts and other epidemics occur. And once agreed conditions are met, money can be released immediately instead of waiting for lengthy government approvals. The goal is quicker response, fewer losses and less disruption to the economy.

Why does speed matter so much?

Delays in managing or mitigating major disasters only make them more expensive. For example, a drought that receives livestock support early may prevent massive animal deaths, flood victims who receive immediate assistance recover faster, while roads repaired quickly allow businesses to resume operations sooner.

The Treasury argues that early financing reduces both humanitarian suffering and the eventual financial cost to government.

Why is it important to invest before instead of after disasters?

Perhaps, the main reason is that prevention costs less than rebuilding.

Rather than spending billions of shillings replacing destroyed infrastructure, the Treasury wants greater investment in flood control, resilient roads, early warning systems, climate adaptation and preparedness programmes.

It notes in the strategy that Kenya still lacks a fully costed national investment plan for disaster prevention, even though adaptation financing requirements alone run into tens of billions of dollars.

Why is Kenya planning to rely less and less on donors in times of disaster?

Global aid is shrinking. The Treasury, for example, notes that Official Development Assistance fell by more than 23 percent in 2025 alone, with further declines expected.

Kenya, at the same time, faces growing public debt, limiting its ability to borrow every time disaster strikes. That means future disaster financing must increasingly come from stronger domestic systems and greater private-sector participation.

Doesn’t Kenya already have several disaster funds?

Yes, Kenya operates several financing mechanisms, including the Contingencies Fund, the National Drought Emergency Fund, County Emergency Funds, the Hunger Safety Net Programme and agricultural insurance schemes.

However, most were designed primarily around drought.

The Treasury says financing for floods, epidemics, landslides, fires and other hazards remains inadequate. Some important financing tools used previously have also become inactive, leaving gaps in protection against large disasters.

What role will counties play under the planned disaster financing framework?

Kenya’s 47 counties are expected to strengthen emergency funds, improve preparedness and work more closely with the National Treasury under common financing rules.

The strategy also seeks better coordination between national and county governments so funding can move faster during emergencies.

How will the taxpayers– benefit?

The Treasury says the objective is not simply to spend more money, but spend it earlier and more effectively.

If financing works as planned, disaster victims should receive assistance faster, enabling affected communities to recover more quickly.

Furthermore, essential public services such as education and healthcare should face fewer disruptions, while development projects should be less likely to lose funding whenever disasters occur. Over time, this should reduce the overall economic shocks caused by disasters.

What are the biggest challenges?

The strategy itself acknowledges that implementation will determine whether the reforms succeed.

Kenya still faces gaps in disaster data, coordination between institutions, county preparedness and long-term investment in prevention.

The country must also identify new sources of financing at a time of rising public debt burden and declining donor support.

Kenya Airways (KQ) has sued a US-based supplier, Aero Industrial Sales (AIS), over an alleged breach of a multi-million dollar agreement for the disposal of surplus aircraft parts from its Boeing 777 fleet.

The national carrier says AIS failed to account for, remit proceeds from, or return inventory under a 2016 three-year consignment agreement covering surplus components, tools and equipment from Boeing 777-200 and 777-300 aircraft.

Under the contract, AIS was to guarantee minimum net proceeds of $2.75 million (about Sh356.12 million) from the sale of the excess stock.

In a suit to be heard today before the High Court, KQ now claims AIS has failed to honour the terms of the agreement and is seeking either payment equivalent to the value of the stock or a full reconciliation of all items received, sold and remaining, alongside remittance of proceeds and the return of unsold inventory.

The airline is demanding $11.84 million (about Sh1.53 billion), representing the alleged value of aircraft parts shipped to AIS between October 2016 and September 2020.

Total unpaid sum

KQ argues that AIS has neither remitted proceeds from sold items nor provided adequate records of inventory under its custody.

‘The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for a total unpaid sum of $11,844,742, being the actual value of the excess stock shipped and delivered to the defendant on diverse dates between October 2018 and September 2020,’ KQ states in court papers.

Alternatively, the airline wants the US firm compelled to provide a full account of stock received, sold and remaining, and to remit proceeds from sales while returning any unsold items.

KQ further alleges that AIS failed to provide status reports, monthly sales updates and proper inventory records as required under the agreement.

The airline also contends that the value of the stock may be higher than initially estimated, citing air waybills indicating shipments worth $17.64 million (Sh2.28 billion), though it says a 50 percent discount was applied to account for used components, arriving at the disputed figure of $11.84 million (Sh2.31 billion).

‘The total cost of the items shipped and delivered to the defendant, as supported by the air waybills, is actually $17,641,454.12,’ KQ argues, adding that adjustments were made to reflect the condition of the items.

The airline is also seeking interest on the alleged sums and costs of the suit.

Parallel legal battle

AIS, however, admits the existence of the 2016 agreement but disputes KQ’s claims, saying it acted as an agent in the transaction and that the airline failed to deliver all the parts as agreed.

In its counterclaim, AIS alleges that KQ did not provide the full inventory list and was obligated to replace missing items under the master agreement.

‘The defendant avers that, among other obligations contained in the master agreement, the plaintiff had an obligation to provide the surplus aircraft parts and materials and replace any parts missing from the list supplied,’ AIS states.

The dispute has since taken a cross-border dimension, with AIS filing a separate case in a New York district court in June, accusing KQ of failing to pay $1.13 million (Sh146.33 million) for aircraft parts allegedly supplied.

KQ has yet to respond to the US proceedings, setting the stage for a parallel legal battle across two jurisdictions.

Every now and then, a TV character stays with you long after the credits roll. One of my favourite shows-and one you will probably still find me rewatching-is Billions. Beyond the finance world, sharp negotiations, and power dynamics, I was always intrigued by the character of Wendy Rhoades.

She served as an in-house performance coach and psychiatrist in a high-pressure investment firm, but what fascinated me most was how differently the company approached performance.

Her role was not simply to solve problems or conduct counselling sessions. Instead, she focused on understanding what drove people, helping individuals manage pressure, unlock potential, navigate fears, and perform at their best. She helped high performers remain high performers.

The idea of performance coaches is not new, although it remains uncommon in many workplaces. While dramatised for television, the concept behind the role raises an important question: why do we rarely see performance coaches in corporate Kenya?

Part of the answer may lie in how organisations traditionally think about performance itself. Performance has often been viewed through a systems lens rather than a human one. The focus has largely been on scorecards, KPIs, ratings, and metrics.

When results drop, organisations tend to examine processes, systems, or technical capability. Less attention is given to the emotional and psychological factors sitting beneath performance.

Performance management in many organisations still follows a familiar script. Managers set annual targets, employees complete mid-year reviews, and at year-end ratings determine rewards and promotions.

Yet despite these systems, many organisations continue to struggle with burnout, disengagement, leadership gaps, and inconsistent performance.

Perhaps the issue is not that organisations have too little performance management, but that they have too much management and too little coaching. This is where performance coaches can create value.

Performance coaches sit somewhere between traditional management, learning and development, and employee wellbeing. Their role is not to replace line managers or HR teams, but to unlock potential. They help employees set goals, identify barriers, build confidence, improve focus, and develop healthier work habits.

In some cases, they support leaders dealing with pressure and decision fatigue. In others, they help teams navigate conflict and organisational change.

Managers often focus on deliverables, timelines, and operational outcomes. Coaches focus on the person behind the performance. They ask different questions: What is holding someone back? What pressures are affecting their confidence? Where are their strengths? How can they perform sustainably without burning out?

Corporate Kenya may need to start asking a different question: what if performance management focused less on measuring people and more on enabling them? Perhaps the future of performance is not just better scorecards and appraisal systems.

Perhaps it is building workplaces where people are coached as intentionally as they are measured. Because sometimes people do not need another rating form. Sometimes they simply need someone who helps them become better versions of themselves.

In elite sports, no one expects athletes to perform at world-class levels without coaches. Yet in many organisations we expect employees and leaders to do exactly that.

The hesitation around performance coaching may also come down to cost, culture, and misunderstanding. Some organisations may see coaching as a luxury reserved for executives.

Others may associate it with therapy or assume seeking support signals weakness. In workplaces where long hours and constant pressure are celebrated, admitting people need help performing better can feel uncomfortable.

In a judgment reinforcing the government’s crackdown on fake qualifications in the public service, the court dismissed a petition filed by three former Kenya Railways employees, finding that their appointments were founded on fraud and were therefore void from the beginning.

The court ruled that no legal rights could arise from illegal employment and declined to stop the State from pursuing recovery proceedings or other lawful action against them.

“The employment of the petitioners obtained through fraud was null and void from inception. No right can be founded on an illegality,” the court said.

The ruling arose from a dispute over the government’s nationwide verification of academic and professional certificates in the public service.

In October 2022, the Public Service Commission (PSC) directed ministries, state corporations and agencies to audit qualifications of recently recruited officers, before issuing subsequent circulars expanding the exercise to all public servants regardless of when they were hired.

Those later directives declared appointments secured through forged certificates void from the outset and recommended dismissal, recovery of salaries and benefits, and referral for criminal investigations.

The three former employees argued that the PSC had exceeded its own directive after Kenya Railways verified their qualifications, summarily dismissed them and moved to recover salaries and employment benefits already paid.

“The petitioners can therefore not ride on illegally obtained employment to seek benefits therefrom,” the court said.

They asked the court to declare that their constitutional rights had been breached, block any further action against them and compel Kenya Railways to pay their terminal dues.

The petitioners maintained that the PSC’s initial circular of October 19, 2022 required verification of officers recruited within the preceding 10 years and did not apply to them because they had served for more than two decades.

They also argued that they were dismissed without a fair hearing and that the planned recovery of salaries, benefits and pensions, together with possible criminal prosecution, breached their constitutional rights.

Kenya Railways disputed those claims, saying all three petitioners fell within the category of employees whose qualifications required verification.

The corporation said one petitioner was first employed in October 2017 before securing another appointment in 2021 using a diploma certificate.

The second joined in August 2020 as a station master, while the third was initially hired on contract in November 2017 before obtaining permanent employment in 2021.

The Kenya School of Law told the court that verification established irregularities in the academic documents presented by two petitioners.

It said one certificate carried an index number belonging to a different candidate who sat the 1992 Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education examination, while another certificate contained an index number that did not exist for the stated examination centre.

The PSC argued that subsequent circulars issued in 2023, 2024 and 2025 expanded certificate authentication to all public officers regardless of their recruitment dates.

It maintained that appointments secured through forged certificates were void from inception and did not attract pensions, leave pay or other employment benefits.

In its judgment, the court found that the petitioners never challenged the authenticity findings upon which their dismissals were based.

“Strangely, the petitioners do not challenge the sixth respondent’s findings regarding the copies of the submitted and authenticated certificates,” the court said.

“The fact that employment was obtained through forged certificates is not challenged. The fact of existing fraud is not denied.”

The court also held that the dispute had been wrongly presented as a constitutional petition instead of an ordinary employment claim.

It said employment disputes should ordinarily be pursued under the Employment Act unless a litigant demonstrates constitutional questions that cannot be addressed through existing labour laws.