Ketraco gets nod to reappoint board after petition struck out

Engineers from KETRACO repair one of the six electricity towers (on 18/1/22) along the Olkaria-Lessos-Kisumu power line that was vandalized by unknown people in Kayole estate in Naivasha. [File, Standard]

The High Court has struck out a petition that had blocked the reappointment of three board members at the Kenya Electricity Transmission Company (KETRACO), clearing the path for the Energy Cabinet Secretary to reconstitute the board.

In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, Justice John Chigiti dismissed the petition filed by activist Benjamin Okumu after finding that the pleadings had been drawn and filed by an advocate who was a full‑time public officer, in contravention of the Advocates Act.

The court held that Kevin Mwangala Lusweti, an employee of the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), was prohibited from engaging in private practice while holding public office. His participation rendered the petition and all incidental applications “incompetent, null and void ab initio”, the judge ruled.

Justice Chigiti said the defect is fatally incurable and not even the appointment of the new advocate can cleanse it. He further ruled that the foundation of the petition is fully tainted.

The ruling effectively lifts interim conservatory orders that had been in place since February 23, which restrained the reappointment of board members whose terms expired on February 24. The court also awarded costs to the respondents.

Okumu had filed the petition in the public interest, alleging that KETRACO’s board had carried out an ethnic purge in senior management, with a majority of executive positions and recent recruits drawn from one community. The respondents denied the claims, citing compliance with recruitment policies and constitutional requirements.

With the petition now struck out, the Cabinet Secretary for Energy and Petroleum is expected to proceed with reconstituting the board, whose mandate expired nearly three weeks ago.

The court did not address the substantive allegations in the petition, ruling instead on the threshold issue of legal representation. Justice Chigiti noted that the impropriety went “to the core of the petition” and could not be salvaged under Article 159 of the Constitution, which mandates courts to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities.

He ruled that the court cannot entertain a petition that makes a mockery of the principles enshrined in the Constitution itself.