[2014] KEHC 8203 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION

PETITION NO.365 OF 2012

(CONSOLIDATED WITH PETITION NOs. 430 of 2012, 469 of 2012, 470 of 2012, 471 of 2012, 472 of 2012, 500 of 2012, 98 of 2013, 550 of 2012 and 474 of 2013)

BETWEEN

ELIUD NYAUMA OMWOYO……………..………..………………………..1ST PETITIONER

WINFRED NDINDA MAITHYA……….....………………………………….2ND PETITIONER

AGNES KAJUJU MBURU……………...….…….….......……………..….3RD PETITIONER

AND

KENYATTA UNIVERSITY………………………...........…………………….RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. All the Petitioners were students at the Kenyatta University pursuing various undergraduate degree courses offered by the Respondent, a public university established under the provisions of the Kenyatta University Act. All the Petitioners were removed from the Respondent’s graduation lists for similar reasons and in similar circumstances which I shall shortly set out. In all the nine Petitions the Petitioners allege a violation of several of their rights under the Constitution.

At the hearing, it was agreed that a determination of the cases relating to the three Petitioners above would be binding on all the other Petitions.

Factual background to the Test Petitions

2. In Petition No. 365 of 2012,by their Petition amended on 12th March 2013, the Petitioners, Eliud Nyauma Omwoyo, Winfred Ndinda Maithya and Agnes Kajuju Mburu stated that they were admitted to Kenyatta University in 2007 and 2006 to undertake degree courses leading to an award of Bachelors of Education (Arts) and Bachelors of Education (Special Education), respectively. The 1st and 2nd Petitioner allegedly completed their course in August 2011 and were scheduled to graduate in the University’s graduation ceremony held on 9th December, 2011 while the 3rd Petitioner was set to graduate in the graduation ceremony of 1st July 2011.

The Petitioners’ Case

3. The Petitioners now claim that after fulfilling all requirements for the award of their respective degrees, they were duly classified by their respective Schools and Departments of the Respondent in readiness for the graduation ceremony. Having been so classified, they applied for authority to attend the graduation as was required of them and commenced the clearance process with the Respondent. However, they contend that at the last stages of the clearance and close to their respective graduation ceremonies, they discovered that their names had been arbitrarily and without them being heard, removed from the final list of graduands of their respective departments allegedly on the basis that their marks had been tampered with online.

4. They state in that regard that the decision to remove their names from among the names of the graduands was arbitrary, capricious and oppressive thus contravening their right to a fair hearing under Article 50 and right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution in that each of them was not informed of the intended decision, was not told of the accusations made against them before the decision was made and none of them was given an opportunity to defend themselves before that decision was made.

5. That subsequently, on diverse dates in February, 2012, the Respondent suspended the Petitioners from the University for allegedly having been involved in the tampering of their online examination grades and vide letters issued on diverse dates in June and July 2012, they were invited for disciplinary proceedings allegedly to answer to charges of influencing the tampering with the on-line grades aforesaid. They attended the Disciplinary Committee proceedings and claim that in those proceedings, the Respondent acted as the prosecutor, accuser and also the judge since the Disciplinary Committee consisted of university staff members with pre-determined minds. Subsequently, vide letters issued sometime in September 2012, the Petitioners were discontinued from their studies having allegedly been found guilty of tampering with online marks in several of their units.

6. They further claim that the Respondent’s decision to suspend them from the University is a contravention of their fundamental right to fair administrative action under Article 47, their right to be heard under Article 50 and the right to equality and against discrimination under Article 27 of the Constitution on grounds that they were not notified of the detailed charges of exam tampering before the decision was made and that some of the Petitioners’ colleagues who had been suspended earlier in December 2012 for the same reasons had later been cleared of those charges and thus the Petitioners were treated differently and were discriminated against. On that point they relied on the cases of Alice Njeri Ngiciri vs Kenyatta University, Petition No. 261 of 2011and also the case of Winrose Gathigia vs Kenyatta University Nairobi High Court Misc Appl. No. 1029 of 2007 and De Souza v Tanga Town Council (1961) EA 377.

7. They also contend that the Kenyatta University Rules and Regulations on influencing and tampering with on-line examination do not create any cognizable offence of an exam irregularity that would lead to the penalty of discontinuation from studies and so the decision to do so was ultra vires, null and void.

8. The 2nd Petitioner in Petition No.430 of 2012 and the Petitioner in Petition No. 470 of 2012 who were to graduate on 1st July 2011 have also argued that they were not invited for the disciplinary proceedings and claim that their rights to fair hearing and fair administrative action have been violated since two years of waiting to attend such proceedings cannot be a reasonable time for such proceedings to be called.

9. They also claim that their right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution has been violated because they paid fees to the University and the actions of the Respondent to deny them value for that money amounted to taking away their property, arbitrarily. They have also claim violation of the right to life under Article 26of the Constitutionbecause their intended source of livelihood has allegedly been taken away. Articles 27 and 28 of the Constitution on the rights to equality and inherent human dignity have also been invoked.

10. As to quantum for the violations aforesaid, the Petitioners submit that an award of Kshs.3,000,000/- would be reasonable to vindicate the rights that have been blatantly violated and for the pain, agony and anguish they have undergone and are still going through.

11. The Petitioners thus seek the following orders;

“(i) It be declared that the declassification of the petitioners, from the respondent’s list of graduands, without hearing them, was a contravention of their right under Article 50 of the Constitution to have the respondent’s allegations of commission of an alleged examination result tampering against the petitioners, adjudicated upon by an independent and impartial adjudicating authority and to a fair hearing of the same within a reasonable time.

(ii) It be declared that the declassification of the petitioners from the respondent’s list was a contravention of Article 47 of the Constitution to a fair administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurallyfair with regard to the respondent’s allegations against them of alleged tampering with examination results.

(iii) It be declared that by declassifying the petitioners from the respondent’s list, the respondent has contravened the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 26, 27, 28 and 40 of the Constitution.

(iv) It be declared that the letters inviting the petitioners to disciplinary case and the disciplinary proceedings conducted against them on 21st June , 2012 and 12th July 2012, as well as the decision to discontinue them from the University amount to a contravention of the petitioners’ right under Article 50 of the Constitution to have the respondent’s allegations of the alleged commission of an alleged examination result tampering against the petitioners, adjudicated upon by an independent and impartial adjudicating authority and to a fair hearing of the same within a reasonable time.

(v) It be declared that the letters inviting the petitioners to disciplinary case and the disciplinary proceedings conducted against them on 21st June 2012 and 12th July 2012, as well as the decision to discontinue them from the University amount to a contravention of the petitioners’ right under Article 47 of the Constitution to a fair administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair with regard to the respondent’s allegations against them of alleged tampering with examination results.

(vi) It be declared that the letters inviting the petitioners to disciplinary case and the disciplinary proceedings held against them on 21st June 2012 and 12th July 2012, as well as the decision to discontinue them from the University amount to contravention of the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Articles 26, 27, 28, 40 and 43 (1) (f) of the Constitution.

(vii) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of certiorari to remove and bring to the High Court for the purposes of quashing and to quash the decision of the respondent to declassify the petitioners and to remove their name from the list of its graduands.

(viii) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of Certiorari to remove and bring to the High Court for the purposes of quashing and to quash the decision contained in the letters inviting the petitioners to disciplinary proceedings, and the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the respondent against them on 21st June 2012 and 12th July 2012.

(ix) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of certiorari to remove and bring to the High Court for the purpose of quashing and to quash the decision to discontinue the petitioners from the University contained in the letters dated 17th and 24th September 2012 respectively.

(x) That this Honourable Court be pleased to order that the respondents do conduct fresh disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the law.

(xi) An order that the respondent do pay to the petitioner general damages.

(xii) That this Honourable Court be pleased to make any other or further order/directions to secure enforcement of the petitioners’ fundamental rights as it will deem fit.

(xiii) An order that the respondent do pay to the petitioner costs of this petition.

The Respondent’s case

12. The Respondent, Kenyatta University in response to the Petitions filed a replying affidavit sworn on 29th April 2013 by Daniel Muindi, its Academic Registrar.

13. Mr. Muindi contended that for one to be classified and approved by Senate for inclusion in the Graduation list, one must;

Have passed in all the required units, (however, the Respondent has a provision for one to be classified with one (1) failed unit)

Meet all the financial obligations to the Respondent

Must not have any disciplinary cases pending

One’s online examination data must be verified against the primary examination records as held by the respective University departments.

14. He further deponed that the process under the Respondent’s Statute is that provisional results are released by the respective Deans of Schools after the School’s Board of Examiners have met, pending approval of the results by the Senate. That it is mandatory that a candidate is admitted to a degree (other than an honorary degree) after the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) has certified such a candidate as having satisfied all the conditions prescribed for such a degree. Only then can the candidate be admitted to that degree at a subsequent congregation of the University.

15. It was his further contention that while verifying the examination data for the Petitioners, it emerged that there were variances in the examination marks as they appeared online and as compared with those held by the respective Departments and that it was clear that the Petitioners’ grades had been changed on various dates between 31st December 2010 and 17thFebruary 2011. That they had therefore been provisionally classified for the July 2011 graduation using altered grades. He claimed that provisional classification is done at the relevant School or Department and is subject to change if the verification reveals the need to do so. The alterations found therefore necessitated the decision by the Respondent to deny the students affected by the examination results tampering the right to graduate until investigations had been carried out fully.

16. He thus stated that in view of the irregularities detected in the verification of results, the Respondent appointed a Committee to investigate the cause of the variance in examination records, which committee was to submit its findings to the Vice Chancellor. The Committee investigated the matter and found that some staff members of the Respondent had been involved in the process of altering results, and further, in the disciplinary proceedings, it was revealed that the tampering with the examination results was a surreptitious process involving a cartel between students and some of the members of staff aforesaid.

17. He claimed that the letters dated 20th and 24th February 2012 and marked as “DM-4” were suspension letters to the Petitioners pending their appearance before the Students Disciplinary Committee and that the said letters were properly and lawfully issued.

18. The Respondent in addition now submits that an administrative suspension or a suspension made as a holding operation pending inquiries, such as was the case with the Petitioners herein, need not be made after a formal hearing. And that the rules of natural justice do not apply at that stage. Consequently, the administrative suspension did not offend the Petitioners’ right to fair administrative action or their right to a fair hearing as alleged or at all.

19. It is also its submission that the Petitioners were summoned to appear before the Students Disciplinary Committee on various dates to answer specific charges of influencing the tampering of on-line examination grades in specific units and that they indeed appeared and were given an opportunity to defend themselves. That after being heard, the Students Disciplinary Committee recommended that the Petitioners be discontinued from studying at the Respondent’s University, which position was subsequently communicated to them vide letters dated 17th and 24th September 2012. He claimed that they were further advised to appeal to the Chairman of the University Senate if they deemed it necessary to do so but they have not appealed to date.

20. It is its further submission that the action taken by the Respondent in view of the discrepancies of marks as stated above in the process of verification does not require the consultation of the Petitioners by the University. That the only involvement the Respondent can grant the Petitioners would be to invite them with a view of establishing whether they played a role in the unlawful actions taking into account the fact that students were in fact found to have been involved in the racket.

21. The Respondent also submits that the fact that other students facing similar charges had their cases determined earlier than the Petitioners does not constitute a contravention of the Petitioners’ right to equality and non-discrimination as enshrined in Article 27. That, in any event, even the students who had their cases heard earlier were not all heard on the same dates. Further that, a student is invited to the Disciplinary Committee once investigations relating to him are completed and sufficient information has been gathered by the Respondent. That the delay caused in inviting the Petitioners to attend the Disciplinary Committee proceedings was as a result of investigations that were being conducted by the Respondent in respect of each of the students under investigation.

22. It is its submission that the letters inviting the Petitioners to appear before the Disciplinary Committee were self-explanatory and spelt out the charge that each of the Petitioners was facing. The Respondent at all times had a duty in that regard to ensure that the standards of education in the University are maintained and its graduands meet the standards required by the public hence the action it took in the present circumstances. In any event that it was evident that the Petitioners did not require more time for preparation to answer to the charges as alleged since they did not seek such time before the Committee when they appeared before it.

23. Further, that the mere fact that the affected students were summoned to appear before the Committee at different times does not mean differential treatment or discrimination since not all cases could be heard at the same time because the members of the Committee had other engagements assigned to them by the Respondent which they also had attend to in addition to the responsibility of disciplining students.

24. It is thus case that the decision to discontinue the students does not violate the right to fair administrative action and the right to a fair hearing as it was made after all the Petitioners had been duly heard and the reasons for the decision were clearly set out. Further, the decision does not violate the right to equality and non-discrimination as the Respondent did not in any way treat the Petitioners differently and the fact that different sanctions may have been meted out is not discriminatory per se.

25. It is further submitted that the decision by the Disciplinary Committee to discontinue the Petitioners was not final as it could be appealed from, an option the Petitioners did not pursue.

26. As to the nature of the alleged offence, it submits that the Petitioners were charged with the offence of tampering with online examination grades in specified units and not the general offence of an examination irregularity.

27. The Respondent therefore and for the above reasons, urges the Court to dismiss the Petitions as they also seek to sanctify the action of cheating and illegally changing examination results with a view to enhancing degree classifications, which is bound to negatively affect the public in general and the University in particular.

Determination

28. The crux of the Petitioners case is that by removing them from the graduation lists and later suspending them from the University, the Respondent violated their rights to fair administrative action under Article 47, fair hearing under Article 50, protection from discrimination under Article 27and right to property under Article 40of theConstitutionin addition to other rights allegedly violated. The facts forming the basis of this Petition are not disputed and i will therefore consider whether, based on those uncontested facts, a violation of the Petitioners rights as pleaded has been established- See Prof. J. Oloka-Onyango & Others v Attorney General of Uganda Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2014 in the Constitutional Court of Ugandaon that subject.

Right to Fair administrative action

29. If I understood the Petitioners well, they claim that their right to fair administrative action was violated in two instances. Firstly, after having been classified for graduation scheduled on diverse dates as stated elsewhere above and their names put in the provisional graduation list, the names were removed without them being heard nor reasons given for that removal. For avoidance of doubt, Article 47of theConstitutionstates as follows;

“(1) Every person has the right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.

(2) If a right or fundamental freedom of a person has been or is likely to be adversely affected by administrative action, the person has the right to be given written reasons for the action.”

30. On their part the Respondent through Mr. Muindi’s Affidavit stated that there were variances in the examination marks as they appeared online and those held by the respective departments. That it was clear that the Petitioners’ grades had been changed on various dates between 31st December 2010 and 17th February 2011 and that the Petitioners had been provisionally classified for the 2011 graduation ceremonies using provisional results and the classification was subject to change if the verification revealed the need to do so. And since alterations were found between the online grades and those held by the Respondents’ schools, there was the need for the Respondent to remove the students from the Graduation list until investigations had been carried out, fully. That in those circumstances, the Respondent cannot be blamed for having applied the doctrine of suspension pending inquiry which does not violate, in any way, the Petitioners’ rights to fair administrative action.

31. In determining the above issues, I must begin with a question whether the doctrine of Suspension Pending Inquiry otherwise known as ‘suspension made as a holding operation pending inquiries or administrative suspension’was properly invoked in the present case and whether it does or does not violate the Petitioners’ rights to fair administrative action. As I understand it, under this principle, a decision to suspend pending investigation need not necessarily be made after a formal hearing and that the rules of natural justice do not therefore apply. This argument has been backed up by various judicial decisions and in Lewis v Heffer & Others (1978) 3 ALL ER 354, Lord Denning observed thus;

“Where suspension was made as a holding operation pending inquiries the rules of natural justice did not apply because the suspension was a matter of good administration.”

The principle has also been upheld in Scotland in the Petition of the Newtongrange Branch of Scottish National Party and Others Judicial Review of a pretended decision of the National Executive Committee of the Scottish National Party dated 10th July 1999where Lord Osborne in his opinion upheld the concept of administrative suspension as stipulated in Lewis v Heffer(supra) and His Lordship stated that;

“In this kind of situation, at an early stage when action of some sort requires to be taken and taken firmly, in order to set the wheels of investigation in motion, in my view, natural justice would not demand the steps concerned. ….indeed where an administrative suspension is decided upon, pending an investigation into some controversial circumstances, it would be inappropriate to hold a hearing into those circumstances, separate from the contemplated investigation itself.”

In South Africa, the said principle has also been recognised and upheld by the High Court in the case of Maurice Mangena vs Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and Another, ECJ No. 034 of 2005,where the court held that;

“the purpose of the suspension was not to impose discipline, but for reasons of good administration. It was to ensure that the investigation proceeded unhindered and without any interference, in the first instance, and to protect the interests of the first respondent having regard to the nature of the alleged misconduct, the position of the applicant and the obvious consequences of the alleged misconduct, should it be proved.”

At home in Hon, Justice Amraphael Mbogholi Msagha vs The Hon, Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya and 7 Other Misc Applic No. 1062 of 2004three judges of the High Court recognized and applied the above principle when they stated that;

“So once again, we find and hold that the suspension of the Applicant's is in the words of Megarry J in John vs Rees (supra), a holding operation, pending inquiries by the Tribunal into the question of the Applicant from his office of judge and not a final punishment, as a suspension from the Law Society after being found guilty of some malpractice. No rules of natural justice were therefore violated.'

32. I am in complete agreement with the above erudite findings and as to the applicability of the above principle in a case as one before me, Mumbi J in the Alice Njeri Giciri Case (Supra)stated as follows;

“My reading of the cases relied on by the respondents which I have set out above is that the principle of ‘holding operation pending investigations’ will apply in a situation where urgent action needs to be taken at once, where there are time constraints that limit the possibility for observing the rules of natural justice that require that a party be heard before action is taken against them. The words of Lord Osborne in Petition of the Newtongrange Branch of Scottish National Party and Others Judicial Review of a pretended decision of the National Executive Committee of the Scottish National Party dated 10th July 1999 are that'In this kind of situation, at an early stage when action of some sort requires to be taken and taken firmly, in order to set the wheels of investigation in motion, in my view, natural justice would not demand the steps concerned.”

33. Applying the above reasoning in the current case, in his Affidavit Mr. Muindi has explained the entire process leading to the award of a degree and also the conditions which a student must satisfy before he/she can be classified and approved by the Senate to graduate. In summary; a student must have passed all the required examination units; met the financial obligations to the Respondent; must not have any disciplinary case pending and the online examination results must be verified against the primary examinations records as held by the respective departments of the Respondent. He thus claimed that the graduation list as at 6th June 2011 was also provisional and was subject to the above conditions being satisfied.

34. It is also the Respondent’s contention that during the verifying process as required under the Statute establishing the Respondent, it was found out that there were variances in the Petitioners’ examination marks as they appeared online as compared to those held by their respective departments. Taking all the facts in context, I am in agreement with the Respondent that at that point in time, an action of some kind was required to be taken urgently and firmly in order to set the wheels of investigation in motion. Logically therefore, i do not think that the Respondent ought to have given the Petitioners an opportunity to be heard given the circumstances at the time. The removal of the Petitioner from the graduation list had to be done to enable investigations to be undertaken first. And this is the principle the Respondent is referring to as “a holding operation, pending inquiries”. This principle is true and relevant today as it was in 1978 as expressed in Lewis vs Heffer (supra)that;

“Very often irregularities are disclosed in a government department or in a business house, and a man may be suspended on full pay pending inquiries. Suspicion may rest on him, and so he is suspended until he is cleared of it. No one, so far as I know has ever questioned a suspension on the ground that it could be done unless he is given notice of the charge and an opportunity of defending himself, and so forth. The suspension in such a case is merely done by way of good administration. A situation has arisen in which something must be done at once. The work of the department or the office is being affected by rumour and suspicions. The others will not trust the man. In order to get back to work, the man is suspended. At that stage the rules of natural justice do not apply.”(Emphasis added).'

From the above reasoning and looking at the specific language of Article 47of theConstitution,i do not find that the Petitioners’ rights under that Articlewere violated at the time their names were removed provisionally from the graduation list.

Violation of fair administrative action during the investigations and eventual suspension

35. Having suspended the Petitioners in view of the irregularities detected in the verification of results, the Respondent appointed a committee to investigate the causes of variances in the examination records. The Committee submitted its findings to the Vice-Chancellor and it was found that the Petitioners and other students were complicit in the online results tampering together with some staff members of the Respondent who were the administrators of the online system. It was in view of these findings that the Respondent would not allow the Petitioners to graduate because of the glaring inconsistencies in the marks obtained for some units and the entries contained in the online system. Mumbi J in Alice Njeri Ngiciri (supra)addressed the issues arising in such a situation in the following terms;

“The first is the right of a student, who has undergone a course of study at the Respondent University, to realize the purpose of that course of study in a timely and efficient manner. The other relates to the interest that the University has in ensuring that those qualifying from its academic training do so with the grades that they deserve, and that there is no cheating or tampering with grades which would undermine the credibility and integrity of degrees awarded by the institution.

The first troubling possibility goes to the integrity of students pursuing courses of study at the University and the institutions own staff; that students and staff of the Respondent are willing to reduce the award of grades and qualifying degrees to a transactional exchange in which students’ grades are altered to reflect better than the students have been awarded by their Tutors. The other troubling possibility is that the Respondent’s examination systems are so inefficient and compromised that it cannot safeguard the integrity of the grades it awards. In light of these possibilities, the Court is called upon, in my view, to balance these competing interests while bearing in mind the greater public interest in a system of higher education that can be relied on to help achieve societal goals in education. I shall revert to a consideration of the issue of greater public interest that this matter raises later in this judgment.”

36. The learned Judge captured the issue very well and in the circumstances, and in view of the fact that none of the Petitioners denied that their marks had been tampered with, the Respondent had the obligation of subjecting them through its disciplinary mechanisms before the final decision could be made as those were the procedures anticipated under the enabling Statute of the University. The question that arises is whether the Respondent acted properly and lawfully in doing so.

37. The Petitioners have in that regard referred the Court to the decisions in the cases of Awuni& Others vs West Africa Examinations Council (2005) 1LRC 594,WinroseGathigia vs Kenyatta University (supra) Lempaa Vincent Suyianka& Others vs Kenyatta University & 2 Others, MiscApplic. No. 1118 of 2003, Hypolito Cassiano De Souza vs Chairman and Members of Tanga Town Council (1961) EA 377 and all of which support the position that statutory bodies such as the Respondent, acting in an administrative or quasi-judicial capacity, are required to observe the rules of natural justice including expeditious disposal of cases and the principles that should guide their actions are well settled. I am in agreement with that principle because it is sound and has a firm legal foundation and basis.

38. Looking at the provisions of Article 47of theConstitution again, it is required that the administrative action taken should be expeditious, efficient, lawful and reasonable and procedurally fair. Can that be said of the present Petitions?

39. As stated earlier, the facts obtaining are not disputed. The Petitioners learnt about their declassification from graduation sometimes in June and November 2011,respectively. They then attended the Disciplinary Committee proceedings sometime in June/July 2012.

40. From the foregoing, it is a fact that the Respondent discovered the examination irregularities as early as November 2011. The Petitioners were then suspended in February 2012, five months after the irregularities were discovered .They were then called to attend the Disciplinary Committee meetings in June 2012 and only after the Report from the Committee that had been set up to undertake the investigations on the online tampering had been submitted. Is the delay in conducting investigations reasonable in the circumstances of this case? I have seen the explanation by the Respondent and looking at the matter objectively, that period is unreasonable and it is in that context that I must find that the Petitioners’ rights to fair administrative action that is expeditious and efficient was violated to that extent only and subject to the final orders to be made at the end of this judgment.

Right to Fair Hearing under Article 50

41. The Petitioners have argued that the Disciplinary Committee consisted of University Staff with pre-determined minds and that the Respondent was also the Judge and the Prosecutor at the same time during these proceedings thus violating their right to fair hearing under Article 50.

42. Section 12 of the Kenyatta University Act Cap 210C establishes a Council of the University. Section 13 provides for the functions of the Council inter alia as follows;

- provide for the welfare and discipline of the students of the University.

- provide for the welfare and discipline of the staff.

- it may, after consultation with the Senate, make regulations governing the conduct and discipline of the students of the University generally or specifically authorized by the Council in that behalf.

43. It is clear that the above section makes the Respondent responsible for all the students’ affairs including that of disciplining such students as are deserving of discipline and for good reason. It would otherwise be chaotic and absurd to expect that an external body would step in and take charge of the University’s disciplinary matters with regard to its students. In Republic v Kenyatta University and 2 Others Ex Parte Jared Juma, HC Misc Civil App No. 90 of 2009 the Court held;

“Discipline at the Respondent’s University is necessarily an internal process conducted using internal personnel. It would be impractical to sub-contract or delegate as it were, this function to an outside agency. Most bodies established under statute also establish disciplinary committees. Kenyatta University is no exception. The composition of the disciplinary committee is set out in the Statute, and it comprises University officers. The University has jurisdiction to conduct its own disciplinary proceedings. This must necessarily be so. The suggestion that disciplinary proceedings are a matter for courts is untenable…the existence of such a disciplinary committee has always been recognized by the courts. The courts also recognize that their relationship with such committees is limited to supervision.”

I agree with the above finding and further, in Daniel Nyongesa and Others v Egerton University College CA No. 90 of 1989 Nyarangi J.A stated thus;

“Courts are very loathe to interfere with decisions of domestic bodies and tribunals including college bodies. Courts in Kenya have no desire to run Universities or indeed any other bodies. However, courts will interfere to quash decisions of any bodies when the courts are moved to do so where it is manifest that a decision has been made without fairly and justly hearing the person concerned or the other side, it is the duty of the courts to curb excesses of officials and bodies who exercise administrative or disciplinary measures. Courts are the ultimate custodians of the rights and liberties of people. Whatever the status and there is no rule of law that courts will abdicate jurisdiction merely because the proceedings or inquiry are of an internal disciplinary character.”

In addition, in the case of Arthur Kaindi Nzioka v Kenyatta University Misc App No. 316 of 2007Wendoh J stated that;

“When it comes to such matters of discipline it is up to those institutions/clubs to ensure that they strictly follow procedure that is laid down in their respective statutes… if such institutions want the court to keep off interfering with the management of their institutions, they have to comply with and adhere to all procedure laid down in their respective statutes to avoid courts intervention… in the circumstances, considering the respondent’s total failure to comply with procedure relating to discipline, this court cannot just sit back throw its hand up and say that it is powerless to say anything to uphold the applicants rights.”

44. I am in complete agreement with the above expositions of the law and I am also aware that Courts have also in the past inquired into the composition of the University Disciplinary Committees while testing the adherence of rules of natural justice in their proceedings. For example, in Lempaa Vincent Suyianka v Kenyatta University and 2 Others [2007] eKLRit was stated thus;

“I think it is quite obvious, as learned counsel has shown, that the Committee of which the Deputy Vice-Chancellor speaks glowingly as the guarantor of fairness and natural justice to students who stand accused, is not a structured body, it has no size or shape defined in any regulation, it is a casual conclave conducted by a changing, walk-in-walk-out membership.”

45. In this Petition and with the above context in mind, the Minutes of the Disciplinary Committee proceedings show the membership of the Committees as follows;

Persons present during Omwoyo’s disciplinary proceedings;

1. Dr. Tom Kimani – Ag. Deputy Vice- Chancellor (Academic)- chairing

2. Prof. G. Karugu – Rep Dean, School of Education

3. Dr. Edwin Gimode - Dean, Student Affairs

4. Dr. H M Mbuvi – Rep Prof. K. Kotut – Senate Representative

5. Mr. Tom Mboya – Student Representative

6. Mr. Kiriga Fred – Student Representative

7. Dr. D. M. Muindi – Registrar (Academic) – Secretary

In attendance

1. Mr. Joseph Gikandi – Legal Officer

2. Mr. Gerald Atheru – Dean, School of Business

3. Dr. P. M. Gachanja – Dean, School of Econ

4. Mr. C. A. Ouma – Senate Affairs Section

5. Ms. Rose Mathenge – Senate Affairs Section

6. Mwololo E. (Mrs.) – Head, Senate Affairs Section (Recording)

Persons who were present at Maithya Winfred’s hearing

1. Prof. John Okumu – Deputy Vice-chancellor (Academic)- Chairing

2. Dr. Mueni Kiio – Representing Dean, School of Education

3. Dr. Edwin Gimode – Dean, Student Affairs

4. Prof. K. Kotut – Senate Representative

5. J. M. Kilika – Representing Chairman, Business Administration Dept

6. Mr. Ronoh Philemon – Student Representative

7. Dr. D. M. Muindi – Registrar (Academic) – Secretary

Also in attendance

1. Mr. Aaron Tanui – Legal Officer

2. Mrs. C. T. L. Njoka – Head, Examination Administration Section

3. Mr. James Kaime – Head, Graduation and Certificates Section

4. Mwololo E. (Mrs.) – Head, Senate Affairs Section

5. Ms. Rose Mathenge – Senate Affairs Section

6. Mr. C. A. Ouma – Senate Affairs Section

7. Ms. Celestine N. Mayende – Senate Affairs Section (recording)

Persons present for Mburu Agnes’s hearing

1. Prof. John Okumu – Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)- chairing

2. Dr. Mueni Kiio – Representing Dean, School of Education/ Representing Prof. K Kotut, Senate Representative

3. Dr. Edwin Gimode – Dean, Student Affairs

4. David Okelo – Representing Chairman, History, Arch and Political Studies Dept.

5. Mr. Rooh Philemon – Student Representative

6. Dr. D. M. Muindi – Registrar (Academic) Secretary

Also in attendance

1. Mr. Aaron Tanui – Legal Officer

2. Mrs. C. T. L. Njoka – Head, Examination Administration Section

3. Mr. James Kaime – Head, Graduation and Certificates Section

4. Mwololo E. (Mrs.) – Head, Senate Affairs Section

5. Ms. Rose Mathenge – Senate Affairs Section

6. Mr. C. A. Ouma – Senate Affairs Section

7. Ms. Celestine N. Mayende – Senate Affairs Section (recording)

As can be seen, the Disciplinary Committee was composed of all the representatives required by the Statute and included the Representative of the Students and I see nothing unlawful about the Committee and there is certainly no evidence of pre-determined minds as alleged.

46. Further, in this Petition, I did not hear the Petitioners to be complaining that the Student Disciplinary Committee that dealt with the Petitioners’ case was improperly constituted and was not in accordance with the statute. In that regard, in Ex Parte Jared Juma (supra)it was stated;

“… the University has jurisdiction to conduct its own disciplinary proceedings. This must necessarily be so. The suggestion that disciplinary proceedings are a matter for courts is untenable… Statute xxx Schedule 4(4) establishes the Disciplinary Committee of Kenyatta University. The existence of such disciplinary committee has always been recognized by the courts. The courts also recognize that their relationship with such committees is limited to supervision.”

47. I am persuaded by the above reasoning and I agree that the conduct of disciplinary proceedings are matters that fall within the parameters of the University’s governing body and hereby hold that there was no violation of the Petitioners’ right under Article 50(1)of the Constitution with regard to having the matter adjudicated upon by an independent and impartial adjudicating authority. I reiterate here that there is indeed no evidence before me that the members of the Committee were biased or had pre-determined minds and the arguments made in that regard were no more than speculative.

48. The Petitioners also claimed that the letters inviting them to appear before the disciplinary committee were in violation of Article 50 as they did not state the complainant, the offence and any witnesses to be called. A plain reading of the letters aforesaid would show that the Petitioners were being summoned to appear before the Students Disciplinary Committee in the University Boardroom to answer to charges of influencing the tampering of their online grades in certain units. The Petitioners relied on the Court’s decision in Winrose Gathigia (supra) with regard to a letter almost similar to the ones being challenged in this case and it is worth noting that in the Gathigiacase, the letter was summoning her to answer to charges of examination irregularity in a particular unit. The Court in that regard stated that the letter was very general and all that the Petitioner in that case would of have known was that she had an irregularity in unit ECT 300, but not which type irregularity. In this Petition, the letters have summoned the Petitioners to disciplinary proceedings to answer to charges of influencing tampering with on-line grades in particular units. The questions that I would ask then are, was the letter supposed to reveal the manner of influencing tampering with on-line grades? Was it supposed to reveal any evidence? Was it supposed to reveal the nature of the tampering and the Parties involved? Was it supposed to reveal the sources of the evidence that the Petitioners were to be charged with? My answer to these questions would be in the affirmative. I say so because the letters were basically inviting them for proceedings whereby they would be required to give their defense and side of the story. It was also at these proceedings that the Respondent was going to lay down the evidence that he had against the Petitioners but obviously this did not happen. In fact even at these proceedings, the Respondent merely stated that “investigations revealed that the Petitioners were complicit in the tampering of online grades”. As to what evidence had led the Respondent to such a conclusion, none was placed before me at all, and like the Petitioners, I take the view that the Respondents treated the matter rather casually. I am therefore in agreement with the reasoning of Wendoh J in the Winrose case (supra) where she stated that;

“The letter… did not contain sufficient particulars of the offence that the petitioner was to face to enable the petitioner mount her defence.”

She further noted with approval the decisions in Hypolito De Souza (supra) and Onyango v AG (1987) KLR P 13 which both support the position that a person accused must know the nature of the accusation in order for her to prepare their defense.

In the case of Wanjiku v Republic (2002) 1KLR 825it was noted that;

“An accused person is to be informed, as soon as reasonably practicable, in a language that he understands and in detail, of the nature of the offence with which he is charged. This is meant to eliminate ambushes and undue secrecy…and to provide clear, enough and unambiguous information such as would enable him to make full answer thereto.”

In Kanda v Government of Malaya (1962) AC 322 It was held;

“If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused person to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him: and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct …. them”

49. I hold the same position as expressed above and I am therefore clear in my mind that by not availing the said evidence, the Respondent had violated the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution.

Right to Life

50. Regarding breach of specifically the rights under Article 26 of the Constitution with regard to the right to life in Mathew Okwanda v Minister of Health and Medical Services and 3 Others Pet No. 94 of 2012Majanja J in agreement with the decision in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Attorney General 19790 KLR 154 stated;

“The fact that the case was one that involved enforcement of economic and social rights did not however relieve the petitioner of the responsibility to plead a case that disclosed a violation of fundamental rights and freedoms with due particularity, as in such matters a petitioner had to plead with particularity that of which he complained, the provision said to be infringed and the manner in which the particular right was violated.”

In Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Attorney General and Others Pet No. 229 of 2012 (unreported) the Court noted that;

“It was not necessary to set out the violations with mathematical precision but in a manner that will enable the respondent have notice of the allegations and defend himself or herself and to enable the court adjudicate the violation.”

In Daniel Chacha Muriri v Attorney General Petition No.41 of 2011 eKLRthe Court stated;

“Availability of other available avenues for redress of grievances does not however prevent the petitioner from approaching this court alleging breach of his fundamental right and freedom. Such claim must however be precisely stated and the particular provision infringed to enable this court, sitting as a constitutional court to address the grievances and frame appropriate reliefs.”

I wish to reiterate the above positions and add that it is not for this Court to argue out the Petitioners’ case. The duty of this Court is only to adjudicate on the Petitioners’ case in order to make a determination on whether there was an infringement of their fundamental rights or not. Furthermore, it is upon the Petitioners to argue out their case with precision and to show the Court the nature and extent of infringement of any Constitutional right. In this case, the Petitioners have not shown how their right under Article 26 has been infringed and so their argument in that regard does not hold any water.

Violation of Article 27 of the Constitution

51. Article 27provides for equality and freedom from discrimination. The Petitioners have argued that the differential treatment arising from them being called for disciplinary proceedings about 7 months later and the overall expulsion from the University was unlawful. In any event, that other students with similar cases had their cases expedited and so they were discriminated against.

52. The Constitution provides for the right to equal protection of the law. I cannot therefore understand the Respondent’s argument that it could not deal with all the disciplinary cases at once and that was what prompted the 7 months delay. It also stated that a student is invited to Disciplinary Committee once investigations are complete and sufficient information has been gathered by the University. That the delay caused in inviting the Petitioners to attend disciplinary Committee was a result of those investigations.

53. On this aspect of the Petition, save for the mere assertion that they were discriminated against, the Petitioners gave no evidence whatsoever to support those assertions. Who were the other students and when were their cases heard? Without answers to these questions and since the Respondent categorically denied any discrimination on its part, I cannot find in favor of the Petitioners.

54. In regard to the punishment meted out against the Petitioners, the question that I must put forth is, did the Petitioners appeal against the decision to the proper body? According to the exhibit marked “DM-6”, the letters informing the Petitioners of their discontinuance from studying in the University (Dated 24th September 2012 and 17th September 2012) indicates that they could appeal the decision to the Chairman of Senate within 14 days of receipt of the letter if they deemed it necessary.

55. No evidence was adduced by the Petitioners to show that they appealed against that decision. They merely retired in anger and waited to file this Petition. It is my view therefore that the Petitioners are doing nothing but challenging the merit of the decision under the blanket of discrimination under Article 27of theConstitution. The Court should be seen to be usurping the powers and functions of an appellate body. (The chairman of Senate) in that regard . In any event, is discrimination based on punishment a valid ground under the law? I do not think so and It is my view and I do hold that the Disciplinary Committee is empowered to conduct disciplinary proceedings and it is within its discretion to mete out any punishment it deems fit it in accordance with the University Statute. This Court will not proceed forth to dismiss their decision and direct them to adopt a certain decision.

I therefore hold in conclusion that the Petitioners were not discriminated against.

56. However, with regard to the 2nd Petitioner in Petition No. 430 of 2012 and the Petitioner in Petition No. 470 of 2012and without saying more, I hereby find that they were discriminated against when they were not invited for disciplinary proceedings, despite their names having been removed from the graduation list.

Violation of Article 28 of the Constitution

57. Article 28provides for the right to inherent dignity and the right to have that dignity respected and protected. It is unclear how this right was violated and that is all to say.

Violation of Article 40 of the Constitution

58. Article 40 provides for the right to property.The Petitioners’ argument that the fees they paid to the University is their property and that it falls within the ambit of Article 40 and that the Respondent’s action to discontinue them from the University amounts to taking away their property arbitrarily cannot stand and I therefore hold that their rights under Article 40 was not violated. I say so because they received tuition and all other necessities that a student is entitled to and they properly paid for the same. As regards the right to graduate after all their efforts in studying, the matter has been dealt with elsewhere in this judgment.

Violation of Article 43 (1) (f)

59. Article 43 (1) (f) of the Constitution provides for the right to education.

Article 24thereof provides for limitation of rights while Article 25 provides for fundamental rights and freedoms that may not be limited and the right to education is not listed as a right that cannot be limited. It therefore follows that the respondents must fulfill the requirement of Article 24 for it to justify the limitation of the Petitioners’ right to Education.

60. In that regard, Section 4 (c) of the Kenyatta University Act gives the Respondent the power, to determine who may teach and what may be taught and how it may be taught in the University. Further it must play an effective role in the development and expansion of opportunities for Kenyans wishing to continue with their education. The Respondents mission statement shows that it is committed to providing quality education and training, promote scholarship, service, innovation and creativity and inculcate moral values for sustainable individual and societal development.

61. Some of its general objectives include the promotion of development of the student’s welfare systems for the attainment of academic excellence and an all-round education and to create equal opportunities for those qualified to pursue University education. The Petitioners’ right to education in Kenyatta is also subject to various Rules and Regulations of the Institution. The Kenyatta University Act therefore provides for a series of examinations that students must pass before they are awarded degrees. Failure of any person to meet such conditions cannot per se be deemed to be a violation of the right to education. Once it has been proved that any Petitioner violated the Rules and Regulations of the University then it is upon the University to take disciplinary action. I do not think that the University should in any event allow students to graduate with marks that have been tampered with. The circumstances of this case merely warranted proper administrative action. Having found therefore that the Respondents violated the Petitioners’ right to fair administrative action and hearing, this does not mean that the Petitioners’ right to education was infringed upon as alleged and I shall make the necessary orders at the end of this judgment.

General Damages.

62. The Petitioners have asked the Court to make an award of damages in their favour for the violation of their rights. The Petitioners in this case were accused of tampering with examination grades. I have already held that the Respondent violated their right to fair administrative action and hearing by simply not granting them an opportunity to be heard prior to the removal of their names from the graduation list, informing them of the charge with sufficient details, and presenting them with the evidence in advance so that the Petitioners would have had adequate time to prepare their defence. I wish to adopt the holding of the Court in Pet No. 261 of 2011 (Consolidated with Pet No. 276 of 2011)(supra) whereby it was stated that;

“An award of damages in circumstances such as this would send the message that even if one is found to have tampered with examination results or grades, he or she may well get monetary compensation if one is removed unprocedurally from the respondent’s graduation list. It would be against the public interest for students whose grades have been tampered with to either be permitted to graduate with such grades, or to be compensated in damages for removal from the graduation list… in the circumstances, though I do find that there was a violation of the right to be heard and of fair administrative action, and balancing the right of the petitioners to be heard against the greater public interest to ensure that students graduate from our institutions of higher learning with the grades that they deserve, and thus preserve the integrity of our tertiary education, I make no award of damages against the respondent.”

I am in agreement and the reasoning above is crystal clear as to why an award of damages cannot be made in the circumstances of these Petitions.

Conclusion

63. This case had pleadings and prayers that were lengthy, convoluted and unnecessarily verbose. It also involved 10 Petitioners with similar facts. I have done my best in the circumstances to distil relevant issues and determine them. I have ultimately come to the conclusion that only the right to fair administrative action and the right to a fair hearing were violated in the circumstances that I have explained elsewhere above. I have also stated that this Court cannot turn itself into the proper body to determine whether the Petitioners are guilty of tampering with their online examination results or not. The Court does not have such a mandate and cannot assume the role conferred on the Respondent by Statute.

64. It follows therefore that only prayers (v) and (x) of the present Petition can be granted and for avoidance of doubt, those prayers read as follows;

(v) It be declared that the letters inviting the petitioners to disciplinary case and the disciplinary proceedings conducted against them on 21st June 2012 and 12th July 2012, as well as the decision to discontinue them from the University amount to a contravention of the petitioners’ right under Article 47 of the Constitution to a fair administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair with regard to the respondent’s allegations against them of alleged tampering with examination results.

(x) That this Honourable Court be pleased to order that the respondents do conduct fresh disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the law.

65. Prayers (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix) and (xi)cannot be granted in the circumstances. Those prayers read as follows;

(i) It be declared that the declassification of the petitioners, from the respondent’s list of graduands, without hearing them, was a contravention of their right under Article 50 of the Constitution to have the respondent’s allegations of commission of an alleged examination result tampering against the petitioners, adjudicated upon by an independent and impartial adjudicating authority and to a fair hearing of the same within a reasonable time.

(ii) It be declared that the declassification of the petitioners from the respondent’s list was a contravention of Article 47 of the Constitution to a fair administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair with regard to the respondent’s allegations against them of alleged tampering with examination results.

(iii) It be declared that by declassifying the petitioners from the respondent’s list, the respondent has contravened the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 26, 27, 28 and 40 of the Constitution.

(iv) It be declared that the letters inviting the petitioners to disciplinary case and the disciplinary proceedings conducted against them on 21st June , 2012 and 12th July 2012, as well as the decision to discontinue them from the University amount to a contravention of the petitioners’ right under Article 50 of the Constitution to have the respondent’s allegations of the alleged commission of an alleged examination result tampering against the petitioners, adjudicated upon by an independent and impartial adjudicating authority and to a fair hearing of the same within a reasonable time.

(vi) It be declared that the letters inviting the petitioners to disciplinary case and the disciplinary proceedings held against them on 21st June 2012 and 12th July 2012, as well as the decision to discontinue them from the University amount to contravention of the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Articles 26, 27, 28, 40 and 43 (1) (f) of the Constitution.

(vii) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of certiorari to remove and bring to the High Court for the purposes of quashing and to quash the decision of the respondent to declassify the petitioners and to remove their name from the list of its graduants.

(viii) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of Certiorari to remove and bring to the High Court for the purposes of quashing and to quash the decision contained in the letters inviting the petitioners to disciplinary proceedings, and the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the respondent against them on 21st June 2012 and 12th July 2012.

(ix) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of certiorari to remove and bring to the High Court for the purpose of quashing and to quash the decision to discontinue the petitioners from the University contained in the letters dated 17th and 24th September 2012 respectively.

(xi) An order that the respondent do pay to the Petitioners general damages.

Disposition

66. Prayers (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix) and (xi) are hereby dismissed. Those prayers read as follows;

(a) It be declared that the declassification of the petitioners, from the respondent’s list of graduands, without hearing them, was a contravention of their right under Article 50 of the Constitution to have the respondent’s allegations of commission of an alleged examination result tampering against the petitioners, adjudicated upon by an independent and impartial adjudicating authority and to a fair hearing of the same within a reasonable time.

(b) It be declared that the declassification of the petitioners from the respondent’s list was a contravention of Article 47 of the Constitution to a fair administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair with regard to the respondent’s allegations against them of alleged tampering with examination results.

(c) It be declared that by declassifying the petitioners from the respondent’s list, the respondent has contravened the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 26, 27, 28 and 40 of the Constitution.

(d) It be declared that the letters inviting the petitioners to disciplinary case and the disciplinary proceedings conducted against them on 21st June , 2012 and 12th July 2012, as well as the decision to discontinue them from the University amount to a contravention of the petitioners’ right under Article 50 of the Constitution to have the respondent’s allegations of the alleged commission of an alleged examination result tampering against the petitioners, adjudicated upon by an independent and impartial adjudicating authority and to a fair hearing of the same within a reasonable time.

(f) It be declared that the letters inviting the petitioners to disciplinary case and the disciplinary proceedings held against them on 21st June 2012 and 12th July 2012, as well as the decision to discontinue them from the University amount to contravention of the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Articles 26, 27, 28, 40 and 43 (1) (f) of the Constitution.

(g) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of certiorari to remove and bring to the High Court for the purposes of quashing and to quash the decision of the respondent to declassify the petitioners and to remove their name from the list of its graduands.

(h) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of Certiorari to remove and bring to the High Court for the purposes of quashing and to quash the decision contained in the letters inviting the petitioners to disciplinary proceedings, and the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the respondent against them on 21st June 2012 and 12th July 2012.

(i) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of certiorari to remove and bring to the High Court for the purpose of quashing and to quash the decision to discontinue the petitioners from the University contained in the letters dated 17th and 24th September 2012 respectively.

(k) An order that the respondent do pay to the petitioner general damages.

67. The final orders to be made are therefore the following;

(a) It be declared that the letters inviting the Petitioners to the disciplinary case and the disciplinary proceedings conducted against them on 21st June 2012 and 12th July 2012, as well as the decision to discontinue them from the University amount to a contravention of the petitioners’ right under Article 47 of the Constitution to a fair administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair with regard to the respondent’s allegations against them of alleged tampering with examination results.

(b) That the Respondent is hereby ordered to conduct fresh disciplinary proceedings against all the Petitioners in accordance with the law and in any event within the next 45 days.

65. As regards costs, since the Disciplinary Proceedings shall be revisited afresh, no Party should be penalized with costs and so each Party should bear its own costs.

66. This judgment binds all the other consolidated Petitions namely; Petitions Nos.430 of 2012,469 of 2012, 470 of 2012, 471 of 2012, 472 of 2012, 500 of 2012, 98 of 2013, 550 of 2012 and 474 of 2013.

67. Orders accordingly.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 12TH DAY OFSEPTEMBER, 2014

ISAAC LENAOLA

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Kariuki – Court clerk

Miss Muhoro holding for Mr. Gacheru for Petitioners

No appearance for Respondent

Order

Judgment duly read.

Copy of the Judgment to be supplied.

ISAAC LENAOLA

JUDGE