Adan Mohamed will remain Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) Commissioner-General after the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi rejected a case seeking to overturn his appointment, finding that the challenge had been filed before the wrong court.
The case was brought by the Consumer Federation of Kenya (COFEK), which questioned the legality of appointing Mohamed to the top tax agency position after he had reached the mandatory public service retirement age.
In its ruling, the court said COFEK had approached the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) as a public-interest organisation, yet it was not a party recognised by employment laws as being entitled to file a pre-employment dispute before the court.
The court therefore found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the petition and struck it out.
It also refused to transfer the matter to the High Court, leaving COFEK's challenge unable to proceed before the labour court.
Mohamed, a former Industrialization Cabinet Secretary, was appointed KRA Commissioner-General by Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi for a three-year period.
His appointment was announced through a Gazette Notice dated May 18, 2026, after the KRA board conducted a competitive recruitment process.
He emerged as the successful candidate after six people were shortlisted and interviewed for the position.
Mohamed took over from Humphrey Wattanga, but his appointment soon faced legal questions over his age and whether he was eligible to take up a substantive public office after reaching the public service retirement age.
COFEK, through Secretary-General Stephen Mutoro, argued that Mohamed had already attained the retirement age of 60 when he was appointed.
The organisation claimed that the appointment went against the Constitution, the Public Service Commission Act and regulations that govern retirement within the public service.
COFEK told the court that its objection was not based on Mohamed's qualifications, experience or integrity.
Instead, the lobby said it was challenging what it considered to be the legality of appointing a person who had already reached the mandatory retirement age to a substantive public office.
The organisation wanted the court to declare that the position of KRA Commissioner-General is covered by the constitutional rules on retirement.
It also asked the court to cancel the Gazette Notice through which Mohamed was appointed.
The case was opposed by the Treasury, the Attorney-General, the KRA Board, the Public Service Commission and Mohamed, who all raised preliminary objections over the court's ability to deal with the dispute.
Their lawyers argued that COFEK had not approached the matter as an employer, employee or another party recognised under employment laws.
They said the fact that the dispute concerned a public appointment did not automatically give the ELRC the power to hear the case.
The respondents maintained that COFEK had filed the petition purely in the public interest and therefore did not meet the legal requirements for bringing a pre-employment dispute before the labour court.
The court agreed with that position, finding that its jurisdiction in employment-related matters has limits despite extending beyond ordinary disputes between employers and employees.
It held that a pre-employment dispute can only be brought before the ELRC by persons or organisations that are expressly recognised under employment laws.
Since COFEK did not fall within that group, the court found that it could not proceed with the petition.
The court consequently struck out the case rather than determining whether Mohamed had breached the retirement rules by taking up the KRA position.
The ruling means the court did not make a determination on the merits of COFEK's argument that Mohamed was too old to be appointed.
Instead, the case was stopped on the question of jurisdiction after the court found that COFEK had selected the wrong legal forum.
Mohamed's appointment followed a competitive process conducted by the KRA board, which considered six shortlisted candidates before settling on the former Cabinet Secretary.
He was appointed for three years to succeed Wattanga, with the decision published in the May 18, 2026 Gazette Notice.
The challenge had sought to undo that appointment by relying on constitutional and public service rules on retirement.
However, the labour court's decision has brought the petition before it to an end after finding that COFEK was not legally entitled to pursue the pre-employment dispute in that forum.