Kenyatta University Council has urged the Employment and Labour Relations Court to dismiss a case filed by embattled Vice Chancellor Paul Wainaina, who is challenging the recruitment of a successor and being sent on terminal leave.

 KU sent Prof. Wainaina on leave, arguing that he had accumulated enough days to make his tenure at the university’s helm untenable. He moved to court and froze the process, arguing that he was being illegally removed. Justice Wasilwa issued the orders.

 In his reply, the council’s chair, Prof. Ben Chumo, wants the court to lift the orders requiring Wainaina to proceed on terminal leave so the council can recruit a new VC.

 “Respondent’s actions are not in breach of any of the Petitioner’s constitutional or statutory rights as alleged in the application. No prejudice whatsoever has been demonstrated to have been suffered by the Petitioner.

The petitioner continues to enjoy his full remuneration and benefits per the terms and conditions of his contract of service,” said Chumo.

 Chumo explained that Wainaina got a temporary appointment as a lecturer at the then Kenyatta University College in the Department of Educational Foundations through the university’s letter dated October 11, 1984.

He said Wainaina was hired on permanent terms a year later, on August 5, 1985.

 “Per the staff record form signed by the petitioner on the said date of August 19, 1985, the petitioner indicated that he was born in 1950. However, he did not specify the date and month of his birth. Furthermore, at the time of his appointment as a lecturer, the petitioner furnished his Kenyan National Identity card (serial no. 202447917), which also indicated the said year of birth but without the date and month details,” claimed Chumo.

 According to Chumo, Wainaina resigned on September 21, 1987, but returned to work as a professor in 2005. Chumo said that Wainaina then indicated he was born on July 15, 1950.

He asserted that the law is clear regarding the recruitment of a new VC, arguing that Wainaina’s contract and birth date showed he should leave office on July 15, 2025.

 The court heard that Wainaina had accumulated leave days, which he ought to have utilised in addition to the terminal leave. Chumo said Wainaina continues to enjoy benefits and remuneration set under the law.

 “I reiterate that the third respondent (KU council) resolved that the petitioner’s contract of service was to lapse on July 15, 2025. However, the petitioner continues to be on sabbatical leave until that date.

The third respondent has not disentitled the petitioner from serving his full term as the university’s Vice Chancellor as alleged. There has been no such breach of his contract of service as the sabbatical leave is a mandatory requirement,” said Chumo.

 He said Wainaina handed the instruments of power to the council on April 17, 2024, and ushered in the acting Vice Chancellor, Prof. Waceke Wanjohi. He argued there was no breach of Wainaina’s rights.

 “This honourable court ought not to interfere with the petitioner’s sabbatical leave, which he is obligated to complete before resuming service in any capacity at the third respondent,” Chumo replied.

 In his case, Wainaina sued the Cabinet Secretary of the Ministry of Education, the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Education, the State Department for Higher Education and Research, the KU council, the Public Service Commission, and the Attorney General.

He claimed he was being illegally removed owing to politics. He argued that the council was acting in a similar scheme to the earlier one when he opposed surrendering the university land to the government. Wainaina wants to remain in office until March 2026.

 On the other hand, PSC said it received a letter from the KU council declaring the VC’s position vacant.

The letter stated that the advertisement was to close on February 12, 2025. PSC’s CEO Paul Famba said that at the time it asked Kenyans to apply, it was unaware that Wainaina’s contract was to end on January 26, 2026.

 According to Famba, the contracts issued to Wainaina cannot be subjected to the mandatory retirement age. He said it would be unfair to pay Waceke in an acting capacity while Wainaina was willing to continue working.

 “Article 232 (1) (b) of the Constitution provides that the values and principles of the public service include efficient, effective and economic use of resources, and the third respondent is going against this value and principle by paying an officer acting allowance while there is a substantive holder of the office willing to undertake their duties up and until the expiry of their contract of service,” said Famba.