1. The petitioner is a Year 3 postgraduate student (Registrar/Resident/Senior House Officer) pursuing a Master of Medicine in ENT Surgery (MMed ORL-HNS) at the University of Nairobi. She moved this court through petition dated 18 th July 20255 and amended on 6 th August 2025.The petition is supported by an affidavit sworn on 6 th August 2025, further affidavit sworn on 7 th November 2025 as well as written submissions dated 19 th December 2025 and rebuttal submissions dated 8 th April 2026.
2. The petitioner states that she commenced the said postgraduate programme following study leave approval by her employer, the County Government of Nyeri in November 2018. Further that her education was funded by County Government of Nyeri for an amount of Kshs. 14, 534, 300 by way of bonding which she was to pay back by working for the County Government of Nyeri for 5 years, or in cash if she resigned from the said County. She further states that the respondent's Students' Code of Conduct 2020 and the Students Code of Conduct (Revised) 2021 are expressly defined as the governing documents prescribing penalties for breaches for rules and regulations including those made by faculties and departments. Further that although faculties and departments may prescribe rules relating to academic programs such as deadlines for assignments, logbooks, dissertations, among others, they are not empowered to impose penalties for breach of such rules. It is the Students’ Code of Conduct 2020 (Revised) 2021 that stipulates the grounds upon which students of the respondent may be barred from sitting exams. These include lack of payment of school fees; failure to carry one’s Student ID and Exam Card to exam room, being found guilty of some disciplinary offence and deserving of such a penalty and lack of attendance of the required number of hours for a course that is being taken.
3. It is contended that nowhere in the Students’ Code of Conduct (2020) or Revised 2021 are formative assessments marks or incomplete dissertation proposals listed as grounds for imposition of any penalties upon a UoN student; whether in the form of barring from sitting an exam, barring from attendance of classes, quizzes or even Continuous assessment Tests, relating to the courses taken within a student’s year of study.
4. Contrary to this, the petitioner avers that these grounds have been utilised to bar her from sitting end of year exam on four different occasions, on these grounds. Specifically, she was excluded from the Principles and Practice of Surgery examination in Year 2 (August 2020), and thrice from the Principles and Practice of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery I / Principles and Practice of ORL-HNS1 (HMO 701) exam on 7 th June 2022, 7 th July 2023 and 10 th February 2025 in year 3. That on a fifth occasion, 24 th July 2025, she received a message from the Chairman of Department’s personal email account indicating she was ineligible to sit the examination on account of formative assessment marks which had been improved to above undisclosed departmental cut-off. No letter of such exclusion was ever issued by the respondent University.
5. The petitioner states that in July 2025, she was again denied registration in the HMO 701 course, preventing her from obtaining an Exam Card thereby locking her out of the July 2025 Exam. She contends that the formative assessments were contrived and based on no actually administered formative assessments. On 4 th August 2020 and 10 th February 2025, the petitioner was verbally barred from sitting examinations without written notice, contrary to Clause 2.9.3 of the respondent’s Guidelines on Student Progression. Similarly, her exclusion from the July 2025 examination was communicated only through the Chairman's personal email, without any formal departmental communication.
6. The petitioner states that following each exclusion, the respondent required her to undergo an extended teaching period (especially by way of teaching in the clinical rotations) in order to improve formative assessments marks that had been cited as grounds for exclusion. In year 2, she was compelled to repeat the General Surgery rotation pursuant to a letter dated 4 th August 2020 from the General Surgery Thematic Unit. In year 3, she was subjected to an extended clinical rotation, extra lectures and an extra Temporal Bone Course activity as communicated in letters dated 7 th June 2022 and 8 th February 2024 from the Department of Surgery, reinforced by the verbal comments made by the Department’s chairman on 10 th February 2025 upon ejecting her from the examination room and further the Chairman’s email of 24 th July 2025.
7. The petitioner asserts that despite issuing a Letter of Demand dated 23 rd May 2025 and a subsequent addendum dated 26 th May 2025 to the respondent’s University’s VC demanding to be offered the HMO 701 and demanding a reassurance that formative assessment marks not be utilised as grounds to bar her from sitting the exam, the respondent failed to respond.
8. The petitioner opines that in light of the foregoing violations, she has been subjected to a sustained pattern of unjustified, irregular and unlawful exclusion from academic examinations. Further that with contrived marks having been utilised for years to bar her from sitting examinations, if not addressed, the Department of surgery lecturers would begin to contrive attendance records, records of documents brought to examination room to lock her out of future exams.
9. The petitioner avers that despite paying her full school fees and finding the HMO 701 on offer on the respondent’s website in July 2025, she was deliberately prevented from registering for the course on the SMIS Portal due to refusal by the Chairman of the Department of surgery to resolve hitches in her account on the respondent SMIS Portal, which would enable her register.
10. The petitioner states that the said Chairman, having previously collaborated with the ENT invigilator to contrive marks and unlawfully bar her from the February 2025 examination, continued to frustrate her attempts to register for the July 2025 HMO 701 course, thereby denying her the opportunity to obtain an Exam Card, a mandatory requirement under Clause 6.1.5 of the Student Code of Conduct (Revised) 2021.She adds that the Chairman initially treated her as though she remained in Temporary Withdrawal, terming her as “not fully back” in a WhatsApp message dated 4 th July 2025 and refused to facilitate proper registration despite her appeals to the Dean of Faculty and VC.
11. The petitioner states that upon service of her pleadings as directed by court on 22 nd July 2025, the previously registered HMO 701 course was dropped. There cropped up more impediments to her registration in the respondent’s SMIS Portal. The chairman falsely assured higher authorities through an email dated 23 rd July 2025 that her registration problems were due to a fee balance, which disproved by the Bursar. He then gave false assurances that she would be able to register, yet failed to resolve the persistent errors in her SMIS account.
12. The petitioner states that on 28 th July 2025 the Chaiman suddenly insisted that she had been migrated into the new curriculum group and could only register for HMOTO 701 the new equivalent of HMO 702. This communication was made using personal email account or phone number, contrary to Clause 2.9.3 of the Guidelines on Student Progression, which requires such actions to be formally communicated by the University.
13. The petitioner emphasizes that no provision exists in the pre-existing Mmed ORL-HNS syllabus and Examination Regulations requiring migration to the new curriculum, and students who commenced prior to 2022 continued under the pre-existing Program syllabus and Examination Regulations including courses HMO 710 and HMO 702. That having found the HMO 701 on the Respondent’s University’s website among those on offer for the MMed ENT Surgery program in July 2025, and having paid her full fees, she had a right under clause 4.3 of the students Information Booklet to have her SMIS account cleared to enable registration. Instead, she was flatly refused registration and locked out of the July examination.
14. The petitioner avers that she was on four separate occasions barred from various other non-exam teaching and evaluation activities, particularly, clinical rotations or from going on with her academic program in its entirety on the basis of unlawful and illegal administrative actions taken in violation of the dictates of the respondent’s University’s Students Code of Conduct (Revised) 2021 and its stipulations on academic process as communicated on its Students Information Booklet on the Procedures of Academic Process.
15. She explains that the suspension of 7 th July 2023 by the Department of Surgery was imposed arbitrarily in violation of the University’s governing instruments. The suspension was effected contrary to Clauses 26 and 27.1 of the Students’ Code of Conduct, which regulate the delegation of disciplinary authority over University of Nairobi students, and in disregard of the disciplinary procedures prescribed under clauses 32 to 36 of the Code. The suspension letters were not copied to the Dean or Academic Registrar, further violating Clauses 2.9.3 and 2.9.4 of the Guidelines on Student Progression.
16. The petitioner states that initially, reinstatement was said to depend on advice from the Faculty of Health Sciences (Dean/Associate Dean). Later, the condition mutated to require favourable reports from the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC). This was followed by demands for one, then two psychiatric evaluations, and ultimately, the requirement that she be found innocent at a disciplinary hearing.
17. The petitioner wrote to the Department of Surgery on 4 th August 2023 requesting clarity on the duration and reasons for her suspension so that she could respond and seek reinstatement. In reply, the Department informed her that the suspension was indefinite, amounting to expulsion from clinical rotations. She was told she was presumed guilty of all allegations and would not be afforded any opportunity to defend herself. The Department further stated that reinstatement could only occur if she subjected herself to evaluations at the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC). The Petitioner contends that this penalty was imposed on flimsy bases, including baseless allegations never tested before a disciplinary forum among others.
18. The petitioner contends that the Department of Surgery’s letter of 25 th August 2023 contained unfounded allegations designed to justify its unprocedural suspension decision to the Associate Dean for Postgraduate Students and Research. She argues that this represented a clear departure from the Department’s earlier position that reinstatement would depend on advice from the Faculty of Health Sciences, shifting instead to conditions tied to evaluations at the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC).
19. She posits that forwarding such allegations to the KMPDC violated Clause 32.1.1 of the Students’ Code of Conduct 2021, which requires that complaints against students be forwarded to University offices within three working days. Further, basing the suspension on vague grounds such as “professional misconduct” or “inability to learn” contravened Clauses 15.3 to 25.1.2 of the Code, which specify the offences upon which disciplinary action may lawfully be commenced.
20. The petitioner submits that following her communication of 4 th August 2023, several meetings were convened by the Associate Dean–Postgraduate Students and Research (PGSR) and later by the Dean of Faculty to review the Department of Surgery’s suspension decision. At none of these meetings was reinstatement recommended, and she remained condemned unheard for months.
21. She emphasizes that the Associate Dean–PGSR issued two internal memos dated 4 th September and 23 rd September 2023, which imposed unlawful conditions for reinstatement. These included subjecting herself to one, then two psychiatric evaluations, counselling (psychotherapy), and readmission only upon recommendation of the University Health Services (UHS). The petitioner contends that these decisions disregarded the Students’ Code of Conduct (Revised 2021) , particularly Clauses 26, 27.1, 32.1.1, 32.1.9, and 32–36, which vest disciplinary authority solely in the ViceChancellor or Senate committees.
22. She further contends that the decisions were only communicated verbally, in violation of Clauses 2.9.3 and 2.9.4 of the Guidelines on Student Progression, which require proper written communication copied to relevant officers. When she complained to the Dean of Faculty about the second memo of 18 th September 2023, yet another meeting was convened, again affording the Department of Surgery opportunity to justify its unlawful decision.
23. The petitioner states that seeing that she was getting no assistance from the administrators at the respondnets University’s Faculty of Health Sciences to have the suspension lifted, she then requested for the intervention of the Main Campus Administration, including the then VC, through a letter date 16 th January 2024. She was three weeks later reinstated to clinical rotations and the suspension lifted through letter of 8 th February 2024 from the Department of Surgery. After that she applied for temporary withdrawal which was allowed through letter dated 1 st March 2024 from the UoN Academic Registrar.
24. The petitioner avers that upon her readmission from temporary withdrawal in February 2025, she was again suspended from clinical rotations on the same allegations that had formed the basis of her July 2023 suspension. These allegations were forwarded to Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) by the Department of Surgery Chairman, in disregard of Clause 32.1.1 of the Students’ Code of Conduct (Revised 2021), which requires allegations against students to be forwarded to university offices within three working days. She further contends that disciplinary power over University of Nairobi students can only be delegated to university bodies and officers under Clauses 26.1 and 26.2 , not external committees, and that this amounted to double jeopardy .
25. She explains that her application for readmission was frustrated by the Department of Surgery, which forwarded adverse comments on her presumed guilt to the Academic Registrar. The Registrar, by letter dated 25 th August 2024, arbitrarily converted her temporary withdrawal into indefinite barring, contrary to Paragraph 3.6.2 of the Students Information Booklet, which makes readmission contingent only upon a written application. The Registrar further required her to appeal to a disciplinary committee he himself convened and sat in, while the Deputy ViceChancellor (Academic Affairs), by letter dated 4 th October 2024, imposed indefinite barring unless she was found to be of a certain health status.
26. The Petitioner contends that these actions violated the Students’ Code of Conduct (Revised 2021), which stipulates that penalties such as denial of readmission can only follow a disciplinary process triggered by breach of Part V rules. By refusing readmission and then presiding over his own appeal, the Academic Registrar acted as prosecutor, judge, jury, and arbiter of his own decision, contrary to all tenets of fair hearing.
27. The petitioner relies on Paragraphs 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of the Students Information Booklet on the Procedures of Academic Process, which clearly distinguish between readmission following discontinuation/expulsion and readmission following temporary withdrawal. She submits that only the former is contingent upon successful appeal, while the latter is contingent solely upon the making of a written application as prescribed. Paragraph 3.6.2(c) further guarantees that applicants for readmission after temporary withdrawal are to receive a readmission letter within seven working days of receipt of the application by the Academic Registrar. Contrary to these stipulations, the Academic Registrar and DVCAA imposed grave penalties upon her, on flimsy and non-factual bases.
28. The petitioner avers that despite being duly readmitted into the academic program vide the DVC-AA’s 3 rd February 2025 letter, and in spite of a 27 th March 2025 communication from the Respondent University’s VC that her readmission process was long concluded and that her readmission letter remained valid; she was denied all letters she requested of the respondent University’s Department of Surgery which she was to use to communicate her academic progress to third parties in order to effectively appeal the decision by her employer to recall her to her workstation aa well as apply for sponsorship; the Respondent University’s Department Surgery refused as form 3 rd February 2025 to add her name to the lists of bona fide Mmed ENT surgery students of UoN that were shared with KNH causing her to be denied a Practising Rights Badge.
29. The petitioner states that in a 5 th March 2025 letter, the Chairman of the Department of Surgery wrote to KNH that it would be a high risk to patient safety to readmit her to the clinical rotations despite the DVC-AA’s recommendations. In a 25 th March 2025 meeting of the Medical Advisory Committee (KNH) the said Chairman of the Department recommended the matter be escalated to MAC despite the University’s opinion that the Faculty of Health Science readmit her. She further states that the Chairman, until service of her pleadings on the Respondent, completely refused to facilitate the clearing of hitches in her account on the respondent’s SMIS Portal to enable her obtain registration in HMO 701 course and be included in the Year 3 Exams and download the exam card. She argues that this conduct amounted to arbitrary disregard of communications from the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic Affairs) and the Vice Chancellor, undermining the integrity of the University’s administrative processes.
30. The petitioner avers that the respondent has shown little regard for her right to privacy and to access to information. The Chairman, Department of Surgery, sent a letter dated 4 th April 2023 to the Petitioner’s employer, disclosing details of her academic progression (including being barred from exams) without her request or consent. In September 2023 and October 2024, the petitioner had the receipt of a positive medical report by the Associate -Dean PSGR and DVC-AA put to her as conditions upon which her indefinite barring from clinical rotations and academic program would be lifted as seen in their letters of 4 th and 18 th September 2023 and 4 th October 2024.
31. The Petitioner contends that despite numerous requests and Letters of Demand dated 14 th March 2025 and 23 rd May 2025, she has been denied letters she could use to communicate her academic progression to third parties. Particularly, information in her 4 th August 2020, 7 th June 2022 and 3 rd February 2025 letters from the respondent’s University’s General Surgery Thematic Unit, Department of Surgery and DVC-AA. This also abrogates Clause 2.9.3 of the Guidelines on Student Progression, which expressly requires the University to issue such letters upon request.
32. The petitioner claims that her academic records and information on her academic progression were leaked from the Department of Surgery to KNH contrary to the stipulations of Clause 2.9.4 of the Guidelines on Student Progression and Clause 6.1 of the Respondent University’s Policy on Records Management. She further claims that her requests through letters of 26 th August 2024, 15 th October 2024 and 25 th October 2024 to the Academic Registrar and DVC-AA that she be furnished with reasons for her being denied readmission following temporal withdrawal/denial of readmission and a copy of her readmission form to enable her appeal the said decisions the same was denied. Her letter of demand of 23 rd May 2025 was also not granted.
33. Regarding disregard for the right to a good name, the petitioner states that in a 23 rd November 2023 Consultative Ad-hoc Committee meeting, she was introduced by the Chairman -Department of Surgery as one who suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder; In a 25 th March 2025 meeting of the Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) of KNH, she was introduced by one administrator of the respondent University’s Department of Surgery as one with psychiatrist issues; and in the 4 th August 2020 letter from the Department of Surgery’s General Surgery Thematic Unit, 25 th August 2023 letter from the Department of Surgery, copied to the KMPDC, 25 th March and 15th April 2025 MAC meetings, baseless allegations discussed among some Department of Surgery members, and not subjected to the scrutiny of a procedural disciplinary process were fronted as being true and accurate , as though they were guilty verdicts arrived at by College/Faculty Disciplinary Committee.
34. The petitioner contends that as a result of the respondent’s actions she has lost approximately 3-5 years from her stipulated duration of studentship; she has wasted Kshs. 6,358,756.25 out of the Kshs. 14,534,300 funds allocated to her by the County Government of Nyeri for Year 1 to 5 of her studies and is now without sponsorship for the remaining year so study. The Petitioner avers that she reasonably expected to be formally notified if barred from sitting the February 10 th 2025 HMO 701 exam, but no such letter was issued. As a result, she incurred unnecessary expenses of Kshs. 24,210 for accommodation in Nairobi from 7th February 2025, awaiting the exam in vain.
35. She was needlessly recalled to her work station on account of invalid grounds and contrived marks repeatedly used to slow her academic progression. This placed her in breach of term 1 (g) of her Bonding Agreement exposing her to a debt of Kshs. 14,534,300 owed to the County Government of Nyerui. She has further lost an opportunity to be an ENT Surgeon in the county Government of Nyeri from January 2024.
36. It is her case that she has suffered immense mental anguish, pain and suffering on account of the continuous barring from siting exams, suspension from clinical rotations, coupled with the recall from her work station among others. She further asserts that even if the denial of study leave were later reversed by the Public Service Commission or the Ombudsman, the MMed ENT Surgery programme lacks safeguards against malicious failure by disgruntled lecturers. Consequently, she would have little chance of redeeming her debt of over Kshs. 14,534,300 or recovering her lost career opportunity.
37. The petitioner claims that the attempts to migrate her into the new curriculum Mmed ENT Surgery group would go under draconian and discriminatory Examination Regulation such as Clauses 7.1.9 and 7.1.10 where students are to incur grave penalties such as discontinuation and barring from sitting summative assessments on the grounds of having developed bout of malaria among others.
38. The Petitioner contends that the Students’ Code of Conduct (Revised 2021), which proscribes arbitrary penalties and sets out clear disciplinary procedures (Paragraphs 32–35; Clause 36.1.3(h)), has been disregarded in the 2022 MMed ORL HNS Program Syllabus and Examination Regulations . She submits that while the Code requires penalties to follow due process and be imposed only for proven misconduct under Part V, the 2022 Regulations prescribe wanton and arbitrary penalties. These include barring students from summative assessments or discontinuation for reasons such as alleged misconduct, failure to meet deadlines for surgical logbooks (HMOTO 902), dissertation proposals, or dissertations (HMO 903). Clauses 7.1.5, 7.1.9, 7.1.10, 8.1.2, 7.1.7, 7.2.5, and 7.3.3 demonstrate how the new regulations undermine the protections guaranteed by the Code of Conduct, exposing students to disproportionate sanctions without lawful disciplinary scrutiny.
39. Mmed ENT Surgery postgraduate students are denied an equal pre-examination study break (study leave), with Year 3s and 4s being allocated 1 week and Year 5s one month. The postgraduate students taking various surgical programs under the Department of Surgery of the Respondent are denied an equal opportunity as are other students in various other departments and faculties of the Institution to know from the beginning of the academic year when their mid (Special/Supplementary) and End of Year Examinations are to be held, as the Semester/Term Dates Schedules issued at the beginning of the year are treated as meaningless and inconsequential by the Respondent’s Department of Surgery.
40. The petitioner asserts that respondent’s aforesaid actions violated the provisions of articles 10, 25, 27 (3) and (5), 28, 29(f), 31 (c), 33(3), 35(1) (b), 43 (1) (f), 46(1) (a), 47 and 50 of the Constitution, sections 4 and 6 of the Fair Administrative Action Act 2015 and sections 9(1) and 11(1) of the Health Act 2017
41. The petitioner therefore seeks the following relief:
a) A DECLARATION that the Respondent's actions and decisions that left the Petitioner barred from one or all of the teaching and evaluation activities pertaining to her academic program (including barring from course registration in July 2025), without procedural fairness and without regard to its own stipulations regarding grounds upon which such actions are to be taken, that put to her discriminatory conditions in order that various indefinite barring from her studies may be lifted, that subjected her to unequal treatment, that subjected her to compelled medical diagnosis by a doctor fed with misleading information about her, that violated her right to doctor-patient confidentiality, privacy and human dignity, that in a cruel and inhumane fashion kept on calling for and inciting repeated mental health evaluations, that were devoid of respect for her reputation being a “mere student”, that denied her information she required to exercise her rights, and that grossly violated her rights to goods and services of a reasonable quality, and that protect her economic interests were gross violations of Articles 25(c), 27, 28, 29(f), 31, 33(3), 35(1)(b), 43(1)(a)(f), 46(1)(a)(c), 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
b) An order of CERTIORARI
i. To remove and quash the declarations/orders against the Petitioner in the 28 th July 2025 email (sent at 1.23 pm) from the Respondent's Department of Surgery Chairman.
ii. To remove and quash, and declare unconstitutional, the declarations/orders of the Respondent's 2022 Mmed ORL-HNS Program Syllabus and Examination Regulations at Clauses 7.1.9 and 7.1.10 that (“new-curriculum”) students who fail to remain in sound physical and mental health throughout their academic program are liable to incur the penalties of discontinuation and barring from sitting summative assessments (examinations).
iii. To remove and quash, the declarations/orders of the Respondent's 2022 Mmed ORL-HNS Program Syllabus and Examination Regulations at Clauses 7.1.5, 8.1.2, as well as 7.1.7, 7.2.5 and 7.3.3, that unlawfully prescribe arbitrary penalties (i.e. barring from sitting examinations and discontinuation) upon students who breach the program's rules regulations pertaining to the manner in which their courses and academic programs are to be carried out (breach of Regulation 5.1.8 of the Student Code of Conduct (Revised), 2021.
c) An order of MANDAMUS :
i. Compelling the Respondent to add back the 3.5 years needlessly wasted out of the Petitioner's stipulated duration of studentship to enable her complete her education within the stipulated time.
ii. Compelling the Respondent to offer the Petitioner the HMO 701 exam (by facilitating her obtaining current registration in its SMIS Portal and thus obtaining a current Exam Card pertaining to its next offered exam, and she having registered, being added onto the Examination Register pertaining to Year 3 Mmed ENT Surgery students), at the mid-year or End of Year Examination that follows the full hearing and determination of this Petition.
iii. Compelling the Respondent to allow the Petitioner go on with the Mmed ORL-HNS Program Syllabus and Examination Regulations that she commenced the program under in 2018, until the end of her academic program (including its courses Principles and Practice of ORL-HNS Stage I (HMO 701), Principles and Practice of ORL Stage II (HMO 702), Principles and Practice of ORL-HNS Stage III (HMO 703), Principles and Practice of Head and Neck Surgery (HMO 801), ORL-HNS Logbook (HMO 802) and Dissertation (HMO 803)).
iv. Compelling the Respondent to immediately issue the Petitioner with a letter summarising her and progression from 2018 to date, in a manner that respects her right to privacy and to a good name.
v. Compelling the Respondent to going forward, issue the Petitioner with all letters she requests for in order to communicate her academic standing and progression to third parties in a manner that respects her right to privacy and to a good name.
vi. Compelling the Respondent to afford the students walking into an exam room to take a Department of Surgery exam, an opportunity to sign an attendance record as they walk in, and document within this signed attendance record, the documents brought to the exam room, in addition to the opportunity to keep video/audio records of all signed attendance records at all formative and summative assessments in the course of her academic program.
vii. Compelling the Respondent to install CCTV surveillance in all public areas within the Department of Surgery i.e. its boardroom/exam room, offices, waiting areas, corridors, as well as all other a
[...truncated]
2. The petitioner states that she commenced the said postgraduate programme following study leave approval by her employer, the County Government of Nyeri in November 2018. Further that her education was funded by County Government of Nyeri for an amount of Kshs. 14, 534, 300 by way of bonding which she was to pay back by working for the County Government of Nyeri for 5 years, or in cash if she resigned from the said County. She further states that the respondent's Students' Code of Conduct 2020 and the Students Code of Conduct (Revised) 2021 are expressly defined as the governing documents prescribing penalties for breaches for rules and regulations including those made by faculties and departments. Further that although faculties and departments may prescribe rules relating to academic programs such as deadlines for assignments, logbooks, dissertations, among others, they are not empowered to impose penalties for breach of such rules. It is the Students’ Code of Conduct 2020 (Revised) 2021 that stipulates the grounds upon which students of the respondent may be barred from sitting exams. These include lack of payment of school fees; failure to carry one’s Student ID and Exam Card to exam room, being found guilty of some disciplinary offence and deserving of such a penalty and lack of attendance of the required number of hours for a course that is being taken.
3. It is contended that nowhere in the Students’ Code of Conduct (2020) or Revised 2021 are formative assessments marks or incomplete dissertation proposals listed as grounds for imposition of any penalties upon a UoN student; whether in the form of barring from sitting an exam, barring from attendance of classes, quizzes or even Continuous assessment Tests, relating to the courses taken within a student’s year of study.
4. Contrary to this, the petitioner avers that these grounds have been utilised to bar her from sitting end of year exam on four different occasions, on these grounds. Specifically, she was excluded from the Principles and Practice of Surgery examination in Year 2 (August 2020), and thrice from the Principles and Practice of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery I / Principles and Practice of ORL-HNS1 (HMO 701) exam on 7 th June 2022, 7 th July 2023 and 10 th February 2025 in year 3. That on a fifth occasion, 24 th July 2025, she received a message from the Chairman of Department’s personal email account indicating she was ineligible to sit the examination on account of formative assessment marks which had been improved to above undisclosed departmental cut-off. No letter of such exclusion was ever issued by the respondent University.
5. The petitioner states that in July 2025, she was again denied registration in the HMO 701 course, preventing her from obtaining an Exam Card thereby locking her out of the July 2025 Exam. She contends that the formative assessments were contrived and based on no actually administered formative assessments. On 4 th August 2020 and 10 th February 2025, the petitioner was verbally barred from sitting examinations without written notice, contrary to Clause 2.9.3 of the respondent’s Guidelines on Student Progression. Similarly, her exclusion from the July 2025 examination was communicated only through the Chairman's personal email, without any formal departmental communication.
6. The petitioner states that following each exclusion, the respondent required her to undergo an extended teaching period (especially by way of teaching in the clinical rotations) in order to improve formative assessments marks that had been cited as grounds for exclusion. In year 2, she was compelled to repeat the General Surgery rotation pursuant to a letter dated 4 th August 2020 from the General Surgery Thematic Unit. In year 3, she was subjected to an extended clinical rotation, extra lectures and an extra Temporal Bone Course activity as communicated in letters dated 7 th June 2022 and 8 th February 2024 from the Department of Surgery, reinforced by the verbal comments made by the Department’s chairman on 10 th February 2025 upon ejecting her from the examination room and further the Chairman’s email of 24 th July 2025.
7. The petitioner asserts that despite issuing a Letter of Demand dated 23 rd May 2025 and a subsequent addendum dated 26 th May 2025 to the respondent’s University’s VC demanding to be offered the HMO 701 and demanding a reassurance that formative assessment marks not be utilised as grounds to bar her from sitting the exam, the respondent failed to respond.
8. The petitioner opines that in light of the foregoing violations, she has been subjected to a sustained pattern of unjustified, irregular and unlawful exclusion from academic examinations. Further that with contrived marks having been utilised for years to bar her from sitting examinations, if not addressed, the Department of surgery lecturers would begin to contrive attendance records, records of documents brought to examination room to lock her out of future exams.
9. The petitioner avers that despite paying her full school fees and finding the HMO 701 on offer on the respondent’s website in July 2025, she was deliberately prevented from registering for the course on the SMIS Portal due to refusal by the Chairman of the Department of surgery to resolve hitches in her account on the respondent SMIS Portal, which would enable her register.
10. The petitioner states that the said Chairman, having previously collaborated with the ENT invigilator to contrive marks and unlawfully bar her from the February 2025 examination, continued to frustrate her attempts to register for the July 2025 HMO 701 course, thereby denying her the opportunity to obtain an Exam Card, a mandatory requirement under Clause 6.1.5 of the Student Code of Conduct (Revised) 2021.She adds that the Chairman initially treated her as though she remained in Temporary Withdrawal, terming her as “not fully back” in a WhatsApp message dated 4 th July 2025 and refused to facilitate proper registration despite her appeals to the Dean of Faculty and VC.
11. The petitioner states that upon service of her pleadings as directed by court on 22 nd July 2025, the previously registered HMO 701 course was dropped. There cropped up more impediments to her registration in the respondent’s SMIS Portal. The chairman falsely assured higher authorities through an email dated 23 rd July 2025 that her registration problems were due to a fee balance, which disproved by the Bursar. He then gave false assurances that she would be able to register, yet failed to resolve the persistent errors in her SMIS account.
12. The petitioner states that on 28 th July 2025 the Chaiman suddenly insisted that she had been migrated into the new curriculum group and could only register for HMOTO 701 the new equivalent of HMO 702. This communication was made using personal email account or phone number, contrary to Clause 2.9.3 of the Guidelines on Student Progression, which requires such actions to be formally communicated by the University.
13. The petitioner emphasizes that no provision exists in the pre-existing Mmed ORL-HNS syllabus and Examination Regulations requiring migration to the new curriculum, and students who commenced prior to 2022 continued under the pre-existing Program syllabus and Examination Regulations including courses HMO 710 and HMO 702. That having found the HMO 701 on the Respondent’s University’s website among those on offer for the MMed ENT Surgery program in July 2025, and having paid her full fees, she had a right under clause 4.3 of the students Information Booklet to have her SMIS account cleared to enable registration. Instead, she was flatly refused registration and locked out of the July examination.
14. The petitioner avers that she was on four separate occasions barred from various other non-exam teaching and evaluation activities, particularly, clinical rotations or from going on with her academic program in its entirety on the basis of unlawful and illegal administrative actions taken in violation of the dictates of the respondent’s University’s Students Code of Conduct (Revised) 2021 and its stipulations on academic process as communicated on its Students Information Booklet on the Procedures of Academic Process.
15. She explains that the suspension of 7 th July 2023 by the Department of Surgery was imposed arbitrarily in violation of the University’s governing instruments. The suspension was effected contrary to Clauses 26 and 27.1 of the Students’ Code of Conduct, which regulate the delegation of disciplinary authority over University of Nairobi students, and in disregard of the disciplinary procedures prescribed under clauses 32 to 36 of the Code. The suspension letters were not copied to the Dean or Academic Registrar, further violating Clauses 2.9.3 and 2.9.4 of the Guidelines on Student Progression.
16. The petitioner states that initially, reinstatement was said to depend on advice from the Faculty of Health Sciences (Dean/Associate Dean). Later, the condition mutated to require favourable reports from the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC). This was followed by demands for one, then two psychiatric evaluations, and ultimately, the requirement that she be found innocent at a disciplinary hearing.
17. The petitioner wrote to the Department of Surgery on 4 th August 2023 requesting clarity on the duration and reasons for her suspension so that she could respond and seek reinstatement. In reply, the Department informed her that the suspension was indefinite, amounting to expulsion from clinical rotations. She was told she was presumed guilty of all allegations and would not be afforded any opportunity to defend herself. The Department further stated that reinstatement could only occur if she subjected herself to evaluations at the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC). The Petitioner contends that this penalty was imposed on flimsy bases, including baseless allegations never tested before a disciplinary forum among others.
18. The petitioner contends that the Department of Surgery’s letter of 25 th August 2023 contained unfounded allegations designed to justify its unprocedural suspension decision to the Associate Dean for Postgraduate Students and Research. She argues that this represented a clear departure from the Department’s earlier position that reinstatement would depend on advice from the Faculty of Health Sciences, shifting instead to conditions tied to evaluations at the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC).
19. She posits that forwarding such allegations to the KMPDC violated Clause 32.1.1 of the Students’ Code of Conduct 2021, which requires that complaints against students be forwarded to University offices within three working days. Further, basing the suspension on vague grounds such as “professional misconduct” or “inability to learn” contravened Clauses 15.3 to 25.1.2 of the Code, which specify the offences upon which disciplinary action may lawfully be commenced.
20. The petitioner submits that following her communication of 4 th August 2023, several meetings were convened by the Associate Dean–Postgraduate Students and Research (PGSR) and later by the Dean of Faculty to review the Department of Surgery’s suspension decision. At none of these meetings was reinstatement recommended, and she remained condemned unheard for months.
21. She emphasizes that the Associate Dean–PGSR issued two internal memos dated 4 th September and 23 rd September 2023, which imposed unlawful conditions for reinstatement. These included subjecting herself to one, then two psychiatric evaluations, counselling (psychotherapy), and readmission only upon recommendation of the University Health Services (UHS). The petitioner contends that these decisions disregarded the Students’ Code of Conduct (Revised 2021) , particularly Clauses 26, 27.1, 32.1.1, 32.1.9, and 32–36, which vest disciplinary authority solely in the ViceChancellor or Senate committees.
22. She further contends that the decisions were only communicated verbally, in violation of Clauses 2.9.3 and 2.9.4 of the Guidelines on Student Progression, which require proper written communication copied to relevant officers. When she complained to the Dean of Faculty about the second memo of 18 th September 2023, yet another meeting was convened, again affording the Department of Surgery opportunity to justify its unlawful decision.
23. The petitioner states that seeing that she was getting no assistance from the administrators at the respondnets University’s Faculty of Health Sciences to have the suspension lifted, she then requested for the intervention of the Main Campus Administration, including the then VC, through a letter date 16 th January 2024. She was three weeks later reinstated to clinical rotations and the suspension lifted through letter of 8 th February 2024 from the Department of Surgery. After that she applied for temporary withdrawal which was allowed through letter dated 1 st March 2024 from the UoN Academic Registrar.
24. The petitioner avers that upon her readmission from temporary withdrawal in February 2025, she was again suspended from clinical rotations on the same allegations that had formed the basis of her July 2023 suspension. These allegations were forwarded to Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) by the Department of Surgery Chairman, in disregard of Clause 32.1.1 of the Students’ Code of Conduct (Revised 2021), which requires allegations against students to be forwarded to university offices within three working days. She further contends that disciplinary power over University of Nairobi students can only be delegated to university bodies and officers under Clauses 26.1 and 26.2 , not external committees, and that this amounted to double jeopardy .
25. She explains that her application for readmission was frustrated by the Department of Surgery, which forwarded adverse comments on her presumed guilt to the Academic Registrar. The Registrar, by letter dated 25 th August 2024, arbitrarily converted her temporary withdrawal into indefinite barring, contrary to Paragraph 3.6.2 of the Students Information Booklet, which makes readmission contingent only upon a written application. The Registrar further required her to appeal to a disciplinary committee he himself convened and sat in, while the Deputy ViceChancellor (Academic Affairs), by letter dated 4 th October 2024, imposed indefinite barring unless she was found to be of a certain health status.
26. The Petitioner contends that these actions violated the Students’ Code of Conduct (Revised 2021), which stipulates that penalties such as denial of readmission can only follow a disciplinary process triggered by breach of Part V rules. By refusing readmission and then presiding over his own appeal, the Academic Registrar acted as prosecutor, judge, jury, and arbiter of his own decision, contrary to all tenets of fair hearing.
27. The petitioner relies on Paragraphs 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of the Students Information Booklet on the Procedures of Academic Process, which clearly distinguish between readmission following discontinuation/expulsion and readmission following temporary withdrawal. She submits that only the former is contingent upon successful appeal, while the latter is contingent solely upon the making of a written application as prescribed. Paragraph 3.6.2(c) further guarantees that applicants for readmission after temporary withdrawal are to receive a readmission letter within seven working days of receipt of the application by the Academic Registrar. Contrary to these stipulations, the Academic Registrar and DVCAA imposed grave penalties upon her, on flimsy and non-factual bases.
28. The petitioner avers that despite being duly readmitted into the academic program vide the DVC-AA’s 3 rd February 2025 letter, and in spite of a 27 th March 2025 communication from the Respondent University’s VC that her readmission process was long concluded and that her readmission letter remained valid; she was denied all letters she requested of the respondent University’s Department of Surgery which she was to use to communicate her academic progress to third parties in order to effectively appeal the decision by her employer to recall her to her workstation aa well as apply for sponsorship; the Respondent University’s Department Surgery refused as form 3 rd February 2025 to add her name to the lists of bona fide Mmed ENT surgery students of UoN that were shared with KNH causing her to be denied a Practising Rights Badge.
29. The petitioner states that in a 5 th March 2025 letter, the Chairman of the Department of Surgery wrote to KNH that it would be a high risk to patient safety to readmit her to the clinical rotations despite the DVC-AA’s recommendations. In a 25 th March 2025 meeting of the Medical Advisory Committee (KNH) the said Chairman of the Department recommended the matter be escalated to MAC despite the University’s opinion that the Faculty of Health Science readmit her. She further states that the Chairman, until service of her pleadings on the Respondent, completely refused to facilitate the clearing of hitches in her account on the respondent’s SMIS Portal to enable her obtain registration in HMO 701 course and be included in the Year 3 Exams and download the exam card. She argues that this conduct amounted to arbitrary disregard of communications from the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic Affairs) and the Vice Chancellor, undermining the integrity of the University’s administrative processes.
30. The petitioner avers that the respondent has shown little regard for her right to privacy and to access to information. The Chairman, Department of Surgery, sent a letter dated 4 th April 2023 to the Petitioner’s employer, disclosing details of her academic progression (including being barred from exams) without her request or consent. In September 2023 and October 2024, the petitioner had the receipt of a positive medical report by the Associate -Dean PSGR and DVC-AA put to her as conditions upon which her indefinite barring from clinical rotations and academic program would be lifted as seen in their letters of 4 th and 18 th September 2023 and 4 th October 2024.
31. The Petitioner contends that despite numerous requests and Letters of Demand dated 14 th March 2025 and 23 rd May 2025, she has been denied letters she could use to communicate her academic progression to third parties. Particularly, information in her 4 th August 2020, 7 th June 2022 and 3 rd February 2025 letters from the respondent’s University’s General Surgery Thematic Unit, Department of Surgery and DVC-AA. This also abrogates Clause 2.9.3 of the Guidelines on Student Progression, which expressly requires the University to issue such letters upon request.
32. The petitioner claims that her academic records and information on her academic progression were leaked from the Department of Surgery to KNH contrary to the stipulations of Clause 2.9.4 of the Guidelines on Student Progression and Clause 6.1 of the Respondent University’s Policy on Records Management. She further claims that her requests through letters of 26 th August 2024, 15 th October 2024 and 25 th October 2024 to the Academic Registrar and DVC-AA that she be furnished with reasons for her being denied readmission following temporal withdrawal/denial of readmission and a copy of her readmission form to enable her appeal the said decisions the same was denied. Her letter of demand of 23 rd May 2025 was also not granted.
33. Regarding disregard for the right to a good name, the petitioner states that in a 23 rd November 2023 Consultative Ad-hoc Committee meeting, she was introduced by the Chairman -Department of Surgery as one who suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder; In a 25 th March 2025 meeting of the Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) of KNH, she was introduced by one administrator of the respondent University’s Department of Surgery as one with psychiatrist issues; and in the 4 th August 2020 letter from the Department of Surgery’s General Surgery Thematic Unit, 25 th August 2023 letter from the Department of Surgery, copied to the KMPDC, 25 th March and 15th April 2025 MAC meetings, baseless allegations discussed among some Department of Surgery members, and not subjected to the scrutiny of a procedural disciplinary process were fronted as being true and accurate , as though they were guilty verdicts arrived at by College/Faculty Disciplinary Committee.
34. The petitioner contends that as a result of the respondent’s actions she has lost approximately 3-5 years from her stipulated duration of studentship; she has wasted Kshs. 6,358,756.25 out of the Kshs. 14,534,300 funds allocated to her by the County Government of Nyeri for Year 1 to 5 of her studies and is now without sponsorship for the remaining year so study. The Petitioner avers that she reasonably expected to be formally notified if barred from sitting the February 10 th 2025 HMO 701 exam, but no such letter was issued. As a result, she incurred unnecessary expenses of Kshs. 24,210 for accommodation in Nairobi from 7th February 2025, awaiting the exam in vain.
35. She was needlessly recalled to her work station on account of invalid grounds and contrived marks repeatedly used to slow her academic progression. This placed her in breach of term 1 (g) of her Bonding Agreement exposing her to a debt of Kshs. 14,534,300 owed to the County Government of Nyerui. She has further lost an opportunity to be an ENT Surgeon in the county Government of Nyeri from January 2024.
36. It is her case that she has suffered immense mental anguish, pain and suffering on account of the continuous barring from siting exams, suspension from clinical rotations, coupled with the recall from her work station among others. She further asserts that even if the denial of study leave were later reversed by the Public Service Commission or the Ombudsman, the MMed ENT Surgery programme lacks safeguards against malicious failure by disgruntled lecturers. Consequently, she would have little chance of redeeming her debt of over Kshs. 14,534,300 or recovering her lost career opportunity.
37. The petitioner claims that the attempts to migrate her into the new curriculum Mmed ENT Surgery group would go under draconian and discriminatory Examination Regulation such as Clauses 7.1.9 and 7.1.10 where students are to incur grave penalties such as discontinuation and barring from sitting summative assessments on the grounds of having developed bout of malaria among others.
38. The Petitioner contends that the Students’ Code of Conduct (Revised 2021), which proscribes arbitrary penalties and sets out clear disciplinary procedures (Paragraphs 32–35; Clause 36.1.3(h)), has been disregarded in the 2022 MMed ORL HNS Program Syllabus and Examination Regulations . She submits that while the Code requires penalties to follow due process and be imposed only for proven misconduct under Part V, the 2022 Regulations prescribe wanton and arbitrary penalties. These include barring students from summative assessments or discontinuation for reasons such as alleged misconduct, failure to meet deadlines for surgical logbooks (HMOTO 902), dissertation proposals, or dissertations (HMO 903). Clauses 7.1.5, 7.1.9, 7.1.10, 8.1.2, 7.1.7, 7.2.5, and 7.3.3 demonstrate how the new regulations undermine the protections guaranteed by the Code of Conduct, exposing students to disproportionate sanctions without lawful disciplinary scrutiny.
39. Mmed ENT Surgery postgraduate students are denied an equal pre-examination study break (study leave), with Year 3s and 4s being allocated 1 week and Year 5s one month. The postgraduate students taking various surgical programs under the Department of Surgery of the Respondent are denied an equal opportunity as are other students in various other departments and faculties of the Institution to know from the beginning of the academic year when their mid (Special/Supplementary) and End of Year Examinations are to be held, as the Semester/Term Dates Schedules issued at the beginning of the year are treated as meaningless and inconsequential by the Respondent’s Department of Surgery.
40. The petitioner asserts that respondent’s aforesaid actions violated the provisions of articles 10, 25, 27 (3) and (5), 28, 29(f), 31 (c), 33(3), 35(1) (b), 43 (1) (f), 46(1) (a), 47 and 50 of the Constitution, sections 4 and 6 of the Fair Administrative Action Act 2015 and sections 9(1) and 11(1) of the Health Act 2017
41. The petitioner therefore seeks the following relief:
a) A DECLARATION that the Respondent's actions and decisions that left the Petitioner barred from one or all of the teaching and evaluation activities pertaining to her academic program (including barring from course registration in July 2025), without procedural fairness and without regard to its own stipulations regarding grounds upon which such actions are to be taken, that put to her discriminatory conditions in order that various indefinite barring from her studies may be lifted, that subjected her to unequal treatment, that subjected her to compelled medical diagnosis by a doctor fed with misleading information about her, that violated her right to doctor-patient confidentiality, privacy and human dignity, that in a cruel and inhumane fashion kept on calling for and inciting repeated mental health evaluations, that were devoid of respect for her reputation being a “mere student”, that denied her information she required to exercise her rights, and that grossly violated her rights to goods and services of a reasonable quality, and that protect her economic interests were gross violations of Articles 25(c), 27, 28, 29(f), 31, 33(3), 35(1)(b), 43(1)(a)(f), 46(1)(a)(c), 47 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
b) An order of CERTIORARI
i. To remove and quash the declarations/orders against the Petitioner in the 28 th July 2025 email (sent at 1.23 pm) from the Respondent's Department of Surgery Chairman.
ii. To remove and quash, and declare unconstitutional, the declarations/orders of the Respondent's 2022 Mmed ORL-HNS Program Syllabus and Examination Regulations at Clauses 7.1.9 and 7.1.10 that (“new-curriculum”) students who fail to remain in sound physical and mental health throughout their academic program are liable to incur the penalties of discontinuation and barring from sitting summative assessments (examinations).
iii. To remove and quash, the declarations/orders of the Respondent's 2022 Mmed ORL-HNS Program Syllabus and Examination Regulations at Clauses 7.1.5, 8.1.2, as well as 7.1.7, 7.2.5 and 7.3.3, that unlawfully prescribe arbitrary penalties (i.e. barring from sitting examinations and discontinuation) upon students who breach the program's rules regulations pertaining to the manner in which their courses and academic programs are to be carried out (breach of Regulation 5.1.8 of the Student Code of Conduct (Revised), 2021.
c) An order of MANDAMUS :
i. Compelling the Respondent to add back the 3.5 years needlessly wasted out of the Petitioner's stipulated duration of studentship to enable her complete her education within the stipulated time.
ii. Compelling the Respondent to offer the Petitioner the HMO 701 exam (by facilitating her obtaining current registration in its SMIS Portal and thus obtaining a current Exam Card pertaining to its next offered exam, and she having registered, being added onto the Examination Register pertaining to Year 3 Mmed ENT Surgery students), at the mid-year or End of Year Examination that follows the full hearing and determination of this Petition.
iii. Compelling the Respondent to allow the Petitioner go on with the Mmed ORL-HNS Program Syllabus and Examination Regulations that she commenced the program under in 2018, until the end of her academic program (including its courses Principles and Practice of ORL-HNS Stage I (HMO 701), Principles and Practice of ORL Stage II (HMO 702), Principles and Practice of ORL-HNS Stage III (HMO 703), Principles and Practice of Head and Neck Surgery (HMO 801), ORL-HNS Logbook (HMO 802) and Dissertation (HMO 803)).
iv. Compelling the Respondent to immediately issue the Petitioner with a letter summarising her and progression from 2018 to date, in a manner that respects her right to privacy and to a good name.
v. Compelling the Respondent to going forward, issue the Petitioner with all letters she requests for in order to communicate her academic standing and progression to third parties in a manner that respects her right to privacy and to a good name.
vi. Compelling the Respondent to afford the students walking into an exam room to take a Department of Surgery exam, an opportunity to sign an attendance record as they walk in, and document within this signed attendance record, the documents brought to the exam room, in addition to the opportunity to keep video/audio records of all signed attendance records at all formative and summative assessments in the course of her academic program.
vii. Compelling the Respondent to install CCTV surveillance in all public areas within the Department of Surgery i.e. its boardroom/exam room, offices, waiting areas, corridors, as well as all other a
[...truncated]