constitutionally obligated to ensure that any of his actions abide by the national values and
principles of good governance in Article 10 of the constitution. In failing to disclose the
members of the selection panel, the 1strespondent fell short of the principle of good
governance and transparency granted that the panel was to preside over a rigorous process
of recruiting the lead agency in the communications sector in Kenya.
9. To the applicant, based on legal advice, he was constitutionally entitled to seek and obtain
such information under Article 35 (3) of the constitution as the composition of the selection
panel and the decisions that it came up with affect the operations and stewardship of the
entire communications sector which comprises the media sector which is extremely
influential in the running of the affairs of Kenya as a nation.
10. He contended that the selection panel was required to consider the various applications,
shortlist and publish the names of and qualifications of all the Applicants within seven (7)
days of the expiry date for receiving the applications which qualifications are set out in
Section 6A of the Act and were similarly set out in the advertisement for the vacancies.
11. The applicant deposed that on 15th April 2014, he was fronted/applied, through a
nomination by the said ICTAK, for appointment to the board of the Communications
Authority of Kenya (CAK) (hereinafter referred to as “the Authority”). To him, this was a
strong vote of confidence in him by the said association and he was acutely aware of the
qualifications needed and was confident that he fitted the bill.
12. Pursuant to the said advertisement, and as prescribed in Section 6B (4) of the act, he was
nominated by ICTAK for the application to serve as a member in the 2nd respondent’s board.
However, his application which had been forwarded by email was marked undelivered
exposing a glaring fault in the selection panel’s server or system capacity to possibly handle
the email and it went through the second time round. In his view, the technical system lapse
of the selection panel email account failed to meet the minimum threshold of guaranteeing
the right to fair administrative action as enshrined under Article 47 of the constitution,
granted the real and gave possibility that many other applicants were locked out of the
process due to this technical fault.
13. The applicant contended that pursuant to Section 6B of the Act, the selection panel was
required to publish the entire list of the applicants for the vacancies in the board of the
2nd respondent within seven (7) days of the expiry of the vacancy notice period but it failed
to do so and in utter disregard of the mandatory provisions of the Act, acted ultra vires and
published the said list on 24th April 2014 instead of 22nd April 2014 and failed to include the
applicant’s name. Based on legal advice, he believed that that the failure to publish the list
of shortlisted candidates as well as the list of all the applicants within the statutorily
stipulated timelines by the 1st respondent on whose behalf the selection panel was acting,
amounted to profound procedural impropriety to warrant the quashing of the subsequent
appointments by this honourable court. To him, the appointment of the 2nd respondent’s
board being the lead agency in the communications sector in Kenya is expected to strictly
adhere to its establishing law without exception, lest all its subsequent actions be tainted
with illegality.
14. Despite the glaring irregularities in the selection process the 1st respondent proceeded to
gazette the 2nd to 8th interested parties as members of the 2nd respondent’s board vide