The dispute surrounding the appointment of a new University of Nairobi vice-chancellor could be resolved outside courts following a request from the ministry.
Yesterday, Cabinet Secretary for Education George Magoha (pictured), through his lawyer Mahat Somane, asked the labour court to grant parties involved 30 days to resolve the dispute.
"If the parties are willing, and have agreed to try resolving this matter amicably, it should be only fair they all embrace negotiations,” said Mr Somane.
Prof Stephen Kiama, who is represented by lawyer Fred Ngatia, however, maintained that there will be no negotiations concerning him quitting office.
READ MORE
MPs investigate leadership wrangles at University of Nairobi
Machogu reads riot act to UoN council over leadership wrangles
Legal occupant
Ngatia told the court that Kiama is in office legally through a statutory process.
"We intend to come back to court on March 5 not for a mention, but for a hearing. If the Cabinet secretary reflects on the decision to acknowledge the appointment of Prof Kiama, then we will not need a hearing," said Ngatia.
Prof Magoha had revoked the appointment of Kiama as the University of Nairobi vice-chancellor (VC) citing irregularities in the appointment process.
He then appointed Prof Isaac Mbeche as the acting VC.
Labour Court judge Maureen Onyango had reinstated Kiama as VC but cautioned him that his actions should not interfere or complicate the case pending in court.
The Ministry of Education moved to court through Darius Mogaka, the director of university education, asking the court to lift orders allowing Kiama to occupy the VC’s office.
Flawed appointment
Magoha said the orders issued amounted to a miscarriage of justice. He insisted that Prof Mbeche should serve as the institution’s acting vice-chancellor.
The ministry argued that Kiama’s appointment was flawed, and that is why it revoked it.
The Public Service Commission, which was represented by lawyer Paul Nyamodi, supported the out-of-court settlement proposal.
“If there is an opportunity to settle this matter by negotiation or conversation, then the opportunity should be embraced,” said Mr Nyamodi.
The university council also said that it must be a party to the negotiations because the vice-chancellor is its employee.
The council, through lawyer Mohamed Nassir, also opposed the 30 days window for negotiations and asked for only 14 days.
“It is a fallacy to say that it is only the petitioner and respondent who are parties in this case. The petitioner is an employee of the university; hence the council is a party to the case,” said Mr Nassir.
He insisted that the council wants the matter settled soon: "Thirty days are too many. My client wants the issue settled as soon as possible. I would suggest 14 days. If there is no settlement, we can come back to court.”
