Lobby group challenges Kenya Railways boss Mainga's stay in office

Kenya Railways Managing Director Philip Mainga. [File, Standard]

A fresh petition has been filed challenging the legality of Kenya Railways Managing Director Philip Mainga’s continued occupation and exercise of the powers of the office months after his alleged second term expired.

The Centre for Litigation Trust has moved to the High Court’s Constitutional and Human Rights Division in Nairobi, arguing that Mainga’s continued stay in office raises serious constitutional and statutory questions concerning the lawful exercise of public authority at the State corporation.

According to the petition, Mainga was appointed Managing Director/CEO for an initial three-year term commencing on or about February 3, 2020.

His first term allegedly expired on February 2, 2023, after which he was reportedly granted a further three-year term.

The petitioner argues that the second term consequently expired on or about February 2, 2026, but Mainga has continued to occupy and exercise the powers and functions of the office.

“The Petition concerns the legality and constitutionality of the continued occupation and exercise of a public office in a State Corporation contrary to the Constitution and the applicable statutory framework,” the Centre for Litigation Trust says.

The petition has been filed against Kenya Railways Corporation, the chairperson of its board, Mainga, and the Attorney-General, with the Public Service Commission named as an interested party.

The fresh lawsuit by the lobby group moved to court hours after the Employment and Labour Relations Court issued conservatory orders blocking Mainga from accessing or exercising the functions of his office pending the inter partes hearing of a separate petition filed by Joan Machuma Nyongesa.

Justice Nzioki wa Makau had directed that Nyongesa’s petition be heard inter partes on August 18, 2026.

However, on Tuesday, August 11, Nyongesa filed a notice seeking to withdraw the petition entirely, potentially altering the legal position created by the interim orders.

The lobby group’s case is separate from Nyongesa’s petition and seeks to challenge Mainga’s continued tenure at Kenya Railways.

The petitioner says it is not pursuing a private employment dispute but a public-interest constitutional case questioning whether the person currently exercising the powers of Kenya Railways CEO has a valid and subsisting legal mandate.

It has asked the court to declare that Mainga’s continued occupation of the office after the expiry of his lawful tenure is unconstitutional, unlawful and invalid.

The Centre is also challenging the application of the Government Owned Enterprises Act, 2025, which came into operation on December 5, 2025 and introduced a statutory framework governing government-owned enterprises, including the appointment and tenure of chief executive officers.

The petition cites Section 22 of the Act, which provides for a three-year CEO term and eligibility for one further term only.

It also challenges the interpretation of paragraph 10(3) of the Fourth Schedule, arguing that the transitional provision cannot confer indefinite tenure on an incumbent CEO.

The petitioner contends that allowing Mainga to continue exercising executive authority could affect decisions involving contracts, procurement, expenditure, personnel and other affairs of Kenya Railways.

“The continued exercise of public office after the lawful expiry of tenure, if established, is inconsistent with the constitutional principles of legality, accountability, good governance and public trust,” the petition states.

The Centre has asked the court to prohibit Mainga from occupying or exercising the powers of CEO upon expiry of his lawful tenure and order Kenya Railways to commence or complete a lawful process for appointing a substantive CEO if the office is found vacant.

It is also seeking orders requiring the corporation and its board to produce Mainga’s original appointment letter, renewal instrument, board resolution authorising the renewal, subsequent instruments relating to his tenure and any legal opinion adopted by the board concerning the effect of the 2025 Act.

The petitioner has further sought conservatory orders restraining Mainga from making new or further substantive decisions in purported exercise of the CEO’s powers pending the hearing of the application.

The case was dated August 12, 2026, and the petitioner has asked that it be certified urgent arguing that continued exercise of disputed public authority could create decisions, transactions and obligations whose validity may later become contentious.

The matter is pending directions