https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/945

Chagoche v Kenya National Examination Council (Civil Appeal 2 of 2021) [2026] KECA 945 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 945 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi Civil Appeal 2 of 2021 PO Kiage, LA Achode & AO Muchelule, JJA May 15, 2026 Between Thomas Makongo Chagoche Appellant and Kenya National Examination Council Respondent (An appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court at Nairobi (J. Mativo, J.) dated 17th January 2018 in Const. Petition No. 102 of 2016) Judgment 1.Before the Kibera Chief Magistrate’s Court, the appellant, Thomas Makongo Chagoche, was charged with two counts. Count I alleged the offence of making a document without authority, contrary to section 357(a) of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that, on diverse dates between 26th February 2011 and 27th October 2011, at Lukwu Place within the Republic of Kenya, and with intent to deceive, the appellant, without lawful authority, made a Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) result slip number 03xxx23 , purporting it to be a genuine result slip issued by the Kenya National Examination Council (KNEC), the respondent. 2.Count II alleged the offence of altering a document with intent to defraud, contrary to section 357(b) of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence were that, on diverse dates between 26th February 2011 and 27th October 2011, within the Republic of Kenya, and with intent to defraud, the appellant knowingly and fraudulently altered KCSE result slip number 03xxx23 , purporting it to be a genuine result slip issued by KNEC to one Joseph Maina. 3.In its judgment, the trial court held that, with respect to I, the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against the appellant, as no evidence was adduced to prove that he had made or signed the executed result slip marked PExh. 1, which purportedly contained the alleged grades. Regarding II, the court found that the evidence on record did not demonstrate that the appellant knew that the grades on PExh- 1 were false. On the contrary, the evidence indicated that the appellant genuinely believed the grades reflected on the slip were his. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had the requisite intention to defraud. The appellant was, therefore, acquitted of both charges. 4.On 27th May 2015, the trial court directed the respondent to issue the appellant with the correct results. Failure to comply with this directive led to the filing of the petition before the superior court below on the allegations that the respondent had infringed on the appellant’s rights in failing to issue him with the correct result slip and for the malicious criminal charges that he had been charged with before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kibera. 5.In the amended petition, the appellant contended that he had, by letter dated 22nd June 2011, been notified of an error in the spelling of his name on his KCSE result slip. The slip incorrectly recorded his name as “Chachoge Makongo Thomas” instead of the correct “Chagoche Makongo Thomas,” as reflected in his National Identity Card and Certificate of Birth. The appellant averred that the respondent assured him that a corrected certificate would be issued within thirty (30) days. Despite repeated follow-ups, he received no communication until 26th October 2011, when he was contacted by an unknown caller and instructed to report to the respondent’s offices. Upon attending, he met a respondent’s official who demanded Kshs 10,000. This was in addition to a fine the appellant had already paid through the bank. The appellant’s refusal to pay led to a heated exchange, culminating in the criminal charges which he stated were malicious. 6.The appellant was arraigned before the Kibera Law Courts and was subsequently acquitted of the charges for lack of proof. Following the acquittal, the respondent was directed to issue the appellant a corrected certificate, a directive which remains unfulfilled. The appellant asserted that, as a result of the respondent’s actions, he suffered pain, physical distress, ridicule, harassment, delays in his studies, and defamation. He therefore claimed that his fundamental rights, as guaranteed under Articles 27, 28, 29, 33, 35, 43, 50, and 55 of the Constitution, had been infringed. Further, in relation to the malicious charges preferred against him, the appellant averred that his constitutional rights under Articles 25, 27, 28, and 29 had also been violated by the respondent. He thus sought judgment inter alia: a declaration that the petitioner’s rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights have been grossly violated and or infringed by the respondent; a declaration that the petitioner is lawfully entitled to a new certificate that bears his original and true exact name at no additional cost other than the initial cost paid at the time when sitting for the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education Examinations; a mandatory order of injunction compelling the respondents to issue the petitioner with a new certificate bearing his original and true name forthwith at no cost; and order for full compensation for the losses and damages suffered due to the unconstitutional acts of the respondents, including the following: that the respondents be held liable for the loss of education and unemployment of the petitioner; that the respondent be held liable for the general damages for the violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioner; and the costs of this petition be borne by the respondent. 7.In opposing the petition, the respondent admitted having received the appellant’s letter seeking correction of the spelling of his name on the KCSE result slip. It was acknowledged that the appellant paid the requisite charges and that his application was registered as number 506. The respondent averred that, operating on a first-come, first-served basis, it addressed the appellant’s request on 11th October 2011 by correcting his name to “Chagoche Makongo Thomas,” as sought. 8.The respondent further stated that, on 27th October 2011, the appellant was contacted and requested to collect the corrected result slip from its offices and to surrender the original slip bearing the erroneous name, pursuant to Regulation 28 of the Kenya National Examinations Council (Marking of Examinations, Release of Results and Certification) Rules, 2015. It was contended that, upon attending the offices on that date, the appellant confirmed that his name had been corrected but raised concerns regarding the mean grade reflected on the slip. While the respondent’s records indicated that the appellant had attained a mean grade of x (plain) with a mean score of 19 points, the result slip in the appellant’s possession reflected a mean grade of x (plain) with 39 points. The respondent maintained that, despite printing out the official results, the appellant insisted that his grades had been altered and consequently declined to collect the corrected slip. 9.The respondent asserted that there was no record or evidence of a result slip bearing serial number 03xxx23 in its system. Consequently, it lodged a complaint with the police on suspicion of alteration or forgery of a public document, leading to the appellant’s arrest and arraignment before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kibera. The respondent admitted that the appellant was subsequently acquitted, based on a technicality. 10.It was further averred that, in compliance with the orders issued on 27th May 2015, the corrected result slip was released to the appellant’s examination centre in 2011, as required by law. The respondent maintained that the appellant failed to surrender the original result slip number 03xxx23 and had never applied for a formal review of his KCSE results. The allegation that a KNEC official solicited a bribe from the appellant was expressly denied. Finally, the respondent contended that the petition was barred by the doctrine of laches, pursuant to Regulations 25(3), 27, and 28 of the Kenya National Examinations Council (Marking of Examinations, Release of Results and Certification) Rules, 2015. 11.In the grounds of opposition dated 5th July 2016, the respondent stated inter alia: the amended petition was bad in law, an affront to and or ultra vires Regulations 26(b) and 27 of the Kenya National Examinations Council (Marking of Examinations, Release of Results and Certification) Rules 2015 and devoid of legal merit in so far as there is no application or request for review of results made to the respondent at any time before the petition herein; the amended petition was frivolous, misconceived and contrary to the Evidence Act and Regulation 22(3) of Kenya National Examinations Council (Marking of Examinations, Release of Results and Certification) Rules 2015 in so far as the substratum thereof is hearsay evidence, uncertified copy of result slip no. 03xxx23 whose source was unknown; the petition was guilty of approbation and reprobation as he was given the result slip and certificate for Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education results bearing his original and true name at no additional cost but declined and or neglected to take delivery and or collect the same; and the petition was baseless and otherwise an abuse of court process as it does not disclose any violation of fundamental rights by the respondent and should be dismissed with costs. 12.In the judgment, the superior court found that the respondent had discharged its obligation by correcting the appellant’s name as requested and forwarding the corrected result slip, reflecting the grades contained in its official records, to the appellant’s examination center. The superior court held that it was the respondent who had refused to collect the corrected slip, insisting instead on being issued with a result slip bearing grades inconsistent with the respondent’s records. The superior court declined to compel the respondent to release results that differed from its official data, emphasizing that the petitioner had neither applied for remarking nor formally disputed the grades through the prescribed procedures. 13.The superior court further observed that the question of who falsified the result slip that led to the appellant’s arrest and prosecution remained unresolved. However, it held that the appellant’s acquittal did not entitle him, in law, to demand issuance of results that did not reflect his actual performance.The superior court found that the respondent had provided credible explanations and that its archived records reflected the correct results. It was therefore concluded that it could not perpetuate an illegality by compelling the issuance of inaccurate results. 14.Additionally, the superior court held that, pursuant to the applicable regulations, the appellant was required to surrender the original result slip bearing the misspelt name before a corrected one could be issued. The superior court emphasized that judicial discretion to compel performance must be exercised on the basis of evidence and sound legal principles. In the circumstances, it found that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any breach of constitutional rights or to establish a basis for the reliefs sought. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 15.Aggrieved by the above decisions, the appellant raised the following grounds of appeal inter alia:“1.That the learned judge erred in law and in fact in clearly misapprehending the appellant’s case by basing his entire decision on the issue of review of KCSE results yet the appellant in his petition had applied for an order of injunction compelling the respondent to issue the appellant with a new certificate bearing his original and true name and not for review of results.2.That the learned judge erred in law and in fact in making a finding that it is the petitioner who had refused to collect his corrected result slip and failing to appreciate the fact that the respondent’s legal officer was on record stating that the corrected result slip bearing the name error; yet the original result slip was last in the possession of the respondents who used it in their criminal case against the appellant.3.That the learned judge erred in law and fact in failing to appreciate that the respondent had failed to show how the original KCSE result slip no. 03xxx23 could have been subsequently come to be in the possession of the appellant after the Kibera Criminal case against the appellant, where the petitioner had been charged with forging the said KCSE result slip and the result slip produced by the respondents’ witness as one of the prosecution exhibits.4.That the learned judge erred in law and fact in making a judgment which was not supported by and was contrary to the evidence on record.5.That the learned judge erred in law and fact in disregarding the appellant’s evidence and submissions on record and hence arriving at a wrong finding.” 16.When the appeal came up for hearing on the virtual platform, learned counsel Mr. Otieno was present for the appellant, while learned counsel Ms. Okoth was present for the respondent. They had both filed their respective written submissions. They were allowed to highlight them. 17.Learned Counsel Mr. Otieno argued that the appellant’s appeal sought the release of his KCSE result slip under the correct name to enable him to pursue further studies. He contended that the respondent’s requirement to produce the original slip with the name error was unreasonable and impossible, as the slip was not in the appellant’s possession. The result slip had previously been produced as evidence in the Kibera Law Court and was allegedly forged, while the Kibera Law Court had made orders for verification and release of the results, recognizing the injustice suffered by the appellant. He further acknowledged that the document could be obtained from the court records, but maintained that the respondent’s conditions had caused the appellant to lose many years of study opportunities. He also sought the Court’s indulgence regarding procedural defects in the Memorandum of Appeal, which had been drafted by a layperson and lacked a formal prayer, relying on the Court’s powers under Rule 33. 18.Ms. Okoth submitted that the Kenya National Examinations Council has no dispute with the appellant, but requires the original KCSE result slip with the incorrect name in order to issue a corrected slip. She explained that KNEC does not have the original slip, as it was produced as an exhibit in the Kibera Law Court. She emphasized that if the appellant produces the original slip, the corrected slip can be issued, which would settle the appeal. The insistence on the original slip is mandated by the Rules to ensure that an individual cannot possess two result slips. 19.In rebuttal, Mr. Otieno submitted that the appellant’s original KCSE result slip, which contained a name error, was never released to him. The slip was produced by KNEC officials as part of a criminal proceeding in the Kibera Law Court and used as an exhibit, not by the appellant himself. He explained that the appellant only realized the name error upon attempting to collect the slip in Kuria, and KNEC could not release it due to the error. Mr. Otieno raised concerns that, even if the appellant were directed to retrieve the slip from Kibera, the lapse of about ten years could make it unavailable or create procedural challenges that would further delay the appellant. He maintained that the appellant’s grievance primarily concerns the unavailability of the original slip, which has prevented him from moving forward with his education. 20.It was emphasized that the memorandum of appeal was drafted by a layperson and lacked formal prayers, and he requested the Court’s indulgence under Rule 33 to proceed despite the technical defect. He acknowledged that the slip was the only one in contention and that no corrected slip had yet been issued. He further contended that any issues regarding the marks only arose later, and the subordinate court found that the appellant could not have known the marks were incorrect at the time of collection. 21.Ms. Okoth confirmed that KNEC does not have the original result slip; it was surrendered to the police and subsequently used in the Kibera Law Court. She noted that the document produced there was not the original but marked for identification in the criminal proceedings. KNEC’s position is that the appellant must produce the original slip for a corrected slip to be issued, in line with the rules preventing an individual from holding two results slips. She clarified that the dispute arose when the appellant presented a slip with discrepancies in grades and points from the KNEC database, prompting the criminal complaint. 22.It was this Court’s observation that even if the original slip were retrieved from Kibera, issues remain: the slip may be destroyed, and the grades on the disputed slip differ from KNEC’s records. The Court emphasized that the appeal suffers from procedural defects, including the lack of formal prayers, and that the matter has effectively become a discussion rather than a properly framed legal appeal. Mr. Otieno candidly acknowledged these defects but urged the Court to consider the substantive difficulty faced by his client being the inability to access the original slip and move forward with his education. 23.Having considered the record, the grounds of appeal, the reliefs sought before the superior court, and the judgment impugned, we are satisfied that the appeal lacks merit. The appellant’s central complaint is that the learned Judge misapprehended the nature of his petition and failed to grant the declaratory, mandatory, and compensatory reliefs sought. 24.It is well established that a court must determine only those issues that the parties have placed before it. In Kenya Ports Authority -vs- Kuston (K) Ltd (2009) 2 EA 212, the Court emphasized that a court’s responsibility is to rule on the evidence on record and not to introduce extraneous matters. Similarly, in Baber Alibhai Mwaji -vs- Sultan Hashim Lalji & Another [2010] eKLR, the Court held that pleadings define the issues for determination and that a court cannot create or determine issues that are not pleaded by the parties. These principles govern our review of the present appeal. 25.The appellant’s petition sought declaratory reliefs that his constitutional rights had been violated, a declaration that he was entitled to a new certificate bearing his correct and original name, a mandatory injunction compelling the respondent to issue the corrected certificate, and compensation for losses allegedly suffered as a result of the respondent’s actions. The superior court confined itself to determining whether the respondent had corrected the appellant’s name, whether it had made the corrected result slip available, and whether the appellant had established a violation of his constitutional rights. 26.The superior court found that the respondent had corrected the appellant’s name and forwarded the corrected result slip reflecting the grades contained in its official records to the appellant’s examination centre in accordance with the Kenya National Examinations Council (Marking of Examinations, Release of Results and Certification) Rules, 2015. The appellant declined to collect the slip, insisting instead on a result slip reflecting grades inconsistent with the respondent’s archival records. The court correctly held that it could not compel the issuance of results contrary to the official records. Importantly, the appellant had neither applied for remarking nor invoked the statutory mechanisms available to challenge the results. 27.The appellant’s acquittal in the criminal proceedings instituted against him did not, in law, entitle him to results that differed from the respondent’s official records. An acquittal only indicated that the prosecution failed to prove the criminal charge beyond reasonable doubt; it did not operate as proof that the grades recorded in the respondent’s archives were inaccurate. 28.We cite the cases Kasuve -vs- Mwaani Investments Ltd & Others [200] 1 EA and Peter Njau Kairu -vs- Stephen Ndung’u Njenga & Another, CA 57 of 1997 in so far as they reinforce the requirement that reliefs which interfere with established legal records or rights must be supported by clear, cogent, and unambiguous evidence. By parity of reasoning, a statutory body entrusted with custody of examination records cannot be compelled to issue results inconsistent with its official records absent clear proof of error or illegality. The appellant failed to discharge this burden. 29.Further, the grounds of appeal presented by the appellant are prolix, repetitive, and lack focus. This Court, in Robinson Kiplagat Tuwei -vs- Felix Kipchoge Limo Langat [2020] eKLR, emphasized that excessively verbose or repetitive grounds of appeal do not enhance the prospects of success and tend to obscure the real issues, waste judicial time, and increase costs. The present appeal exemplifies these concerns. 30.Finally, the superior court carefully considered the evidence and submissions placed before it. The court correctly concluded that the respondent had complied with its statutory obligations, that the appellant had refused to collect the corrected result slip, and that the appellant had not proved any breach of his constitutional rights. The court’s findings were based on the evidence and law, and there was no misdirection or introduction of extraneous matters. 31.The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed, but we make no order as to costs. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2026P.O. KIAGE........................................JUDGE OF APPEALL. ACHODE........................................JUDGE OF APPEALA.O. MUCHELULE.......................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR.