[2021] KEHC 8977 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 8977 (KLR)

The court found that the issues raised in the petition had already been determined in previous litigation, specifically in Petition No. 93 of 2015 and Petition No. 132 of 2015, and thus the doctrine of res judicata applied. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of the Universities...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 8977 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Robinson Kioko; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary of Education; Respondent: Commission for University Education; Respondent: Kenya National Qualification Framework; Respondent: Tertiary Institutes and Vocational Training Authority
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 192 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Judges
AN Makau
Legal Topics
Public Participation, Res Judicata, University Education Regulation, Statutory Interpretation, Right to Education, Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Education and Labour Public Participation Res Judicata University Education Regulation Statutory Interpretation Right to Education +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robinson Kioko

Applicant

Cabinet Secretary of Education

Respondent

Commission for University Education

Respondent

Kenya National Qualification Framework

Respondent

Tertiary Institutes and Vocational Training Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act 8 of 2014 is unconstitutional for lack of public participation.
  2. 2 Whether universities in Kenya are lawfully mandated to offer bridging, certificate, and diploma courses under the Universities Act and related statutes.
  3. 3 Whether the petition is barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to prior litigation on the same issues.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the issues raised in the petition had already been determined in previous litigation, specifically in Petition No. 93 of 2015 and Petition No. 132 of 2015, and thus the doctrine of res judicata applied. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of the Universities Act or the Constitution by the respondents. The statutory framework, as amended, lawfully permits universities to offer degrees, diplomas, and certificates, provided they comply with the prescribed minimum requirements and learning volumes. The petitioner did not establish any contravention of the law by the respondents. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as being without...

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition is hereby dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.