The High Court has opened a fresh Constitutional battle over whether a sitting member of the Public Service Commission (PSC) can become chairperson of the same commission without breaching the Constitution’s six-year tenure limit.
The court declined to strike out a petition challenging Francis Meja’s appointment as PSC chairperson, holding that the dispute raises a Constitutional question that previous courts have not determined.
The case concerns Article 250(6)(a), which limits a member of a Constitutional commission or holder of an independent office to a maximum aggregate period of six years, unless serving ex officio.
The petitioners, Magare Gikenyi and Eliud Karanja Matindi, argue that the limit cannot be avoided by moving from commissioner to chairperson within the same commission.
Mr Meja says his February 2026 appointment to the PSC chairmanship was a fresh employment to a distinct constitutional office.
He joined the PSC as a commissioner in January 2025 and became the chairperson after one year through a fresh appointment.
Parliament approved his nomination as chairperson on February 25, 2026, after its Labour Committee vetted him despite questions over his eligibility because he was already a commissioner.
President William Ruto appointed him for six years on February 27, 2026, and he was sworn in on March 4.
This triggered a petition in court asking whether changing positions within the PSC can extend service beyond six years under the Constitution’s six-year tenure framework.
Mr Meja asked the court to terminate the case, arguing that two earlier High Court decisions had settled the dispute.
However, the court rejected that argument. It said the earlier PSC case involved people who had completed terms in other commissions before joining the PSC, rather than serving PSC commissioners seeking different offices within the same commission.
“The observation that the bar is against ‘reappointment within the same commission’ was made in the course of rejecting an argument that the bar extends across different commissions,” the court said.
It added that the earlier judgment had not resolved an actual dispute involving an intra-commission appointment.
“Two disputes may both concern the proper construction of Article 250(6)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya, without being the same ‘matter’ for res judicata purposes, where the operative facts giving rise to the alleged constitutional breach are materially different,” the court said.
The court also rejected Mr Meja’s argument that the petitioners should have raised the issue earlier. It said the dispute did not exist because the relevant appointments had not occurred.
“A party cannot be faulted for failing to raise an issue that had not yet arisen and subsequently not presented before the trial court,” it said.
The judge also declined to label the petition an abuse of court process, finding that it raises a distinct constitutional question that remains unadjudicated.
“The petitioners’ Petition on Article 250(6)(a) of the Constitution, which safeguards the integrity of constitutional commissions generally, cannot be characterised as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court process,” the court ruled.
The ruling leaves the constitutional question for determination: whether a chairperson’s appointment within an existing commission starts a separate tenure or counts toward the member’s existing six-year limit.
The dispute follows earlier litigation by Gikenyi and Matindi over PSC appointments. In August 2025, the High Court held that Article 250(6)(a) did not bar a person who had served in one constitutional commission from joining another because each commission is a distinct legal entity.
That decision addressed movement between commissions, while the present petition concerns movement within one commission.
The Parliamentary Labour Committee also recommended a Constitutional amendment to Article 250(6), saying the provision needed clarity on the six-year single term and whether it could be served in another commission or independent office.
