The High Court on Thursday, 15, 2025, dismissed a constitutional petition seeking to abolish Kenya’s mandatory retirement age, declaring the policy legal, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.

Petitioner Charles Chege Gitau had challenged the regulations that require employees to retire at 60 years or 65 for persons with disabilities. He argued that the rules violate constitutional rights to equality, dignity, and fair labour practices.

Gitau claimed the policy unfairly assumes older workers are less productive, fails to guarantee employment for young people, and contradicts retirement exemptions granted to judges, Members of Parliament, and university researchers.

In his ruling, Justice Mugambi held that the court had jurisdiction to hear the matter since it raised constitutional questions about legislation, not an individual employment dispute.

However, he found Gitau had not proven any unlawful discrimination, explaining that differences in retirement ages for certain professions stem from unique legal and institutional requirements.

The judge emphasized that setting a retirement age is a policy decision within the constitutional mandate of the Public Service Commission (PSC). He noted that the PSC Act already allows the retention of exceptional talent on short-term contracts after retirement where specialized skills are scarce.

“There is no evidence that the retirement age policy is discriminatory or applied arbitrarily,” Justice Mugambi ruled.

In dismissing the petition, the court declined to issue any costs order, citing the matter’s public interest nature.

The PSC and the Federation of Kenya Employers (FKE) had opposed the petition, defending the retirement age policy as grounded in law and necessary for workforce planning, fairness, and creating opportunities for younger workers through affirmative action.

Gitau had sought court orders to abolish mandatory retirement entirely and compel employers in both the public and private sectors to allow staff to work beyond the age limits if they wished. With the court’s decision, the current retirement rules remain in force.