For nearly two decades, Principal Magistrate Gathogo Sogomo climbed Kenya’s judicial ladder one promotion at a time.
He served in demanding stations, earned glowing performance reviews and outlasted many colleagues in years of service.
Yet when the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) announced promotions to Senior Principal Magistrate in September 2025, his name was missing once again.
Now, the Employment and Labour Relations Court has handed him a partial victory that could reshape how unsuccessful judicial officers challenge promotion decisions.
While declining to overturn the promotions or award damages, the court ordered the JSC to disclose Sogomo’s interview scorecard, panel recommendations and the reasons he missed promotion.
The decision, delivered in July, by Justice Dr Jacob Gakeri, strikes a careful balance between protecting the Commission’s constitutional independence and enforcing transparency in public appointments.
Sogomo’s journey through the Judiciary stretches back to June 21, 2004, when he joined as a Resident Magistrate.
He rose to Principal Magistrate in November 2018 and was transferred to Mombasa Law Courts in 2023, where he continued serving while awaiting another opportunity for advancement.
When the JSC advertised promotions in 2025, Sogomo believed his moment had finally arrived.
Outstanding Judicial Output
He attended interviews on August 11, 2025, after receiving official performance records that, according to his petition, reflected outstanding judicial output.
He also maintained he was the longest-serving judicial officer among those interviewed for promotion to Senior Principal Magistrate.
Instead, disappointment followed.
The Commission’s promotion circular of September 16, 2025, omitted his name.
To Sogomo, the omission represented more than a single career setback.
He argued it formed part of a troubling pattern after similar disappointments during the 2023 and 2024 promotion cycles.
His lawyers promptly demanded written reasons, interview scorecards, panel recommendations and minutes explaining why he failed.
Receiving no immediate disclosure, he turned to court, accusing the Commission of violating his constitutional rights to fair administrative action, access to information, equality and fair labour practices.
He sought sweeping remedies.
Among them were declarations that the JSC had breached multiple constitutional provisions, an order quashing the promotion decision, fresh consideration for promotion, and KSh7 million in constitutional damages.
JSC Defence
The Judicial Service Commission saw the matter very differently.
Through Chief Registrar and JSC Secretary Winfridah B. Mokaya, the Commission insisted promotions within the magistracy are neither automatic nor based solely on seniority.
Every shortlisted candidate undergoes competitive interviews assessing integrity, judicial temperament, substantive law, case management, communication skills, administrative ability and performance.
Individual panel scores are averaged before candidates must surpass a predetermined pass mark.
According to the Commission, Sogomo simply fell below that threshold.
JSC further argued that merit carries greater constitutional weight than seniority under Article 232.
It rejected allegations of discrimination, noting several other candidates also failed to qualify during the same exercise.
The Commission also defended withholding interview records.
It maintained that releasing internal evaluations and deliberations would undermine confidential decision-making and interfere with its constitutional independence in managing judicial appointments and promotions.
Justice Gakeri agreed with the Commission on several crucial questions.
The judge found that participating in interviews did not create a legitimate expectation of promotion.
Competitive recruitment, he observed, depends on comparative merit rather than years served or previous interview appearances.
Sogomo had also failed to demonstrate any clear promise that promotion would follow successful participation.
The discrimination claim met a similar fate.
Although Sogomo complained of repeated exclusion, the court held he never established how he had been treated differently from similarly placed colleagues or identified any prohibited basis for discrimination.
Mere dissatisfaction with repeated failures could not, without supporting evidence, satisfy the constitutional threshold.
Those findings effectively ended his bid to overturn the promotions.
The court declined to quash the September 2025 promotion list, refused to order reconsideration of his application and dismissed the claim for KSh7 million damages, finding no proof that the overall promotion process was illegal, irrational or procedurally unfair.
Transparency
Yet the judgement took a markedly different turn on transparency.
Justice Gakeri rejected the Commission’s broad claim that disclosure would compromise its constitutional mandate.
Instead, he drew a distinction between confidential institutional deliberations and information directly concerning the petitioner.
“The information sought pertains to the petitioner only,” the judge reasoned, concluding there was no justifiable basis for withholding interview scores or the marks attained in different assessment areas.
Such information, he added, could help the magistrate prepare better during future promotion interviews.
The result was a carefully calibrated order.
JSC must now furnish Sogomo with the reasons for his non-promotion, his interview scorecard, the interview panel’s recommendations and the Commission’s decision relating to his application. Each party will bear its own legal costs.
The ruling arrives against the backdrop of an increasingly competitive judicial promotion system.
Merit-based Promotion Framework
In August 2025, the Commission launched promotional interviews covering 167 judicial officers across several cadres, including 38 Principal Magistrates competing for elevation to Senior Principal Magistrate.
JSC said the exercise was intended to strengthen service delivery while maintaining a transparent, merit-based promotion framework.
Justice Gakeri’s decision does not disturb that framework.
Instead, it reinforces two parallel constitutional principles.
The first is that courts will rarely interfere with the Commission’s substantive assessment of merit unless illegality or procedural unfairness is demonstrated.
READ ALSO: PART I: Teachers Defeat Lakeview Investment in High-Stakes 25-Acre Mavoko Land Battle
The second is equally significant: unsuccessful candidates retain an enforceable constitutional right to understand how those decisions were reached.
For judicial officers pursuing the next promotion cycle, the message could hardly be clearer. The courts will not choose winners for the JSC.
But they will insist that those left behind are not kept in the dark.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
