Судья отклонила дело о дискриминации инженеров в Кении из-за сомнений в беспристрастности

Justice Jemimah Keli has stepped aside from a case challenging the recruitment of engineers and directors by the Kenya Rural Roads Authority (Kerra) after the petitioner, the Institution of Engineering Technology of Kenya (IET-K), questioned her impartiality. The Employment and Labour Relations Court judge recused herself despite rejecting claims of actual bias, saying the applicant was convinced it would not receive justice before her. The legal dispute concerns 87 engineering vacancies advertised by Kerra in December 2025, including deputy director roads, assistant director roads, principal engineer, senior engineer and engineer positions. The Institution of Engineering Technology of Kenya sued, claiming the advertisements discriminated against engineering technologists by requiring professional registration with the Engineers Board of Kenya (EBK), rather than recognising registration through the Kenya Engineering Technology Registration Board (KETRB). On February 27, Justice Keli declined IET-K’s request to stop the recruitment, finding that the petitioner had not shown a credible case of a constitutional violation. She held that engineers and engineering technologists are distinct professional cadres with different qualifications, career paths and functions. “The court finds the differentiation in vacancies advertised by the respondent of the professions of engineering technologists and engineers is rational, lawful and objectively justifiable,” she ruled. IET-K later sought her recusal, arguing that the February ruling had gone beyond the question of whether temporary orders should be granted and had effectively decided the main petition. The association said the ruling had determined that its members were not qualified for the contested jobs and created a reasonable fear that the judge had already formed a view on the case. It cited Justice Keli’s finding that engineering technologists could only “work under engineers” and her conclusion that technologists were not qualified to perform functions reserved for engineers. The respondents opposed the recusal application, arguing that dissatisfaction with an adverse ruling was not evidence of bias. They said judicial officers are presumed impartial and that recusal requires objective evidence showing a real possibility that the judge cannot fairly determine the dispute. Justice Keli agreed that the applicant had not established actual bias or prejudice under the judicial conduct rules. But she acknowledged that her earlier ruling had determined some aspects of the petition’s merits. “The only fault was the court having determined whether or not there was a prima facie case as outlined by the applicant, which the court agreed to some extent determined the merit of the petition on some aspects,” she said. The judge nevertheless concluded that the petitioner remained apprehensive about receiving a fair hearing. “There is nothing the court can do to assuage the applicant of getting justice in the cause before it than grant his wish for justice to be seen to be done in this case,” she ruled. She therefore recused herself and referred the file to the Division Presiding Judge for reallocation. The file will now be placed before another judge. The underlying employment dispute remains unresolved. IET-K maintains that requiring EBK registration excludes technologists registered under KETRB, while Kerra has maintained that its recruitment requirements comply with the law. Both EBK and KETRB are statutory bodies. EBK is mandated to develop, regulate, and promote the engineering profession, while KETRB licenses professionals, regulates conduct, and enforces ethical standards for engineering technologists. The dispute has its roots in the separate statutory regulation of the two professions. IET-K says technologists are regulated through KETRB, while engineers are regulated through EBK. IET-K says its purpose is to advance engineering technology and regulate engineering technology in Kenya. The court is yet to determine whether the contested recruitment requirements were discriminatory under the Constitution and law.