You Can Now Sue Employer Who Takes Too Long Or Refuses To Give You The Results Of Your Interview

In a landmark ruling that could reshape recruitment practices across Kenya, the Employment and Labour Relations Court has sent a clear message to employers: keeping job applicants in limbo after interviews can be costly.

The court ordered the Nairobi County Assembly and its Speaker to pay a staggering Sh7 million to Halkano Dida Waqo, a candidate who underwent vetting for the position of Chief Officer for Housing and Urban Renewal in April last year, only to be left waiting indefinitely for feedback that never came.

Justice Mathews Nduma found that the prolonged silence after Mr Waqo’s vetting amounted to a gross violation of his constitutional rights and fair administrative action.

The court ruled that the candidate suffered significant harm, including emotional distress, reputational damage, and lost economic opportunities while waiting for a response that the county assembly simply refused to provide.

The case has exposed a common but rarely challenged practice in Kenyan recruitment processes where candidates, sometimes highly qualified professionals, are interviewed and then abandoned in a void of administrative silence.

Employment law experts say this precedent now gives job seekers a powerful legal tool to demand accountability from employers.

Mr Waqo was among seven chief officers nominated for various positions in the county government in April 2024. While six of his fellow nominees had their reports considered and processed during a special sitting of the county assembly in May, his nomination was inexplicably left out.

The relevant sectoral committee that had vetted him failed to table its report, and nobody bothered to explain why.

What followed was a year of frustration and unanswered questions.

Despite making numerous formal and informal inquiries, Mr Waqo received no useful response. His September 2024 letter to the county assembly seeking clarity on his status went ignored. The silence was deafening, and its impact was devastating.

The court heard compelling evidence of how the administrative opacity destroyed Mr Waqo’s professional prospects.

As a qualified professional, he had foregone other job opportunities in anticipation of the appointment. The public nature of his nomination, followed by the unexplained silence, damaged his reputation and left him vulnerable to speculation about why he had been “silently dropped” from consideration.

Justice Nduma was unsparing in his assessment of the county assembly’s conduct. He described it as “callous and whimsical” for the respondents to argue that the matter had been overtaken by events.

The judge emphasised that Mr Waqo’s right to fair employment processes had been grossly violated when the vetting proceedings were neither reported nor deliberated upon as required by statute.

The ruling underscores several constitutional principles that employers must now take seriously. The right to fair administrative action, enshrined in Article 47 of the Constitution, requires that decisions affecting individuals must be made in a timely manner and that affected persons must be given reasons for administrative decisions.

Employment lawyers say the Sh7 million award, which must be paid by January 2026 or attract interest, reflects the court’s recognition that recruitment process violations cause real and quantifiable harm.

The compensation covers not just economic losses but also the emotional distress, mental anguish, and reputational damage that comes from being left in professional purgatory.

The judgment arrives at a time when complaints about recruitment malpractices in both public and private sectors are mounting. Job seekers routinely report spending considerable time and resources preparing for interviews, only to hear nothing afterwards.

Some candidates have waited months, even years, without feedback, unable to move on because they remain uncertain about their status.

For public sector employers, this ruling adds another layer of accountability to an already heavily regulated recruitment process.

County governments, in particular, must now ensure that their sectoral committees complete their work and that nominees are informed of outcomes within reasonable timeframes.

The days of leaving qualified professionals dangling indefinitely appear to be over.

Private sector employers should also take note. While this case involved a public entity, the constitutional principles and employment rights at stake apply across all sectors.

The duty to provide timely feedback and transparent communication is not limited to government institutions.

Human resources professionals say the ruling will likely prompt organisations to review their recruitment policies and communication protocols.

Best practice now demands that employers establish clear timelines for communicating interview outcomes and stick to them. Even negative feedback, they note, is better than no feedback at all.

The case also highlights the importance of documenting recruitment processes properly.

The county assembly’s failure to table the committee report and its inability to explain what happened to Mr Waqo’s nomination proved fatal to its defence.

Proper documentation and transparent processes are not just good governance; they are legal necessities.

As Mr Waqo awaits his compensation, his case stands as a victory for the thousands of Kenyan job seekers who have experienced similar treatment.

The message from the court is unambiguous: employers who fail to communicate interview outcomes in a timely and transparent manner do so at their own peril.

The cost of administrative indifference, as the Nairobi County Assembly has learned, can run into millions of shillings.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​