Introduction
1. The Petition dated 11 th March 2024, is supported by the Petitioner’s affidavit in support of similar date. The Petition challenges the implementation of curriculum changes introduced to the 1 st Respondent’s Bachelor of Commerce (CPA Exempt) Programme, on the basis of its adverse effect on his eligibility for graduation.
2. The instant dispute pertains the question of whether the decision requiring the Petitioner to undertake additional units is lawful, procedurally fair and consistent with the Constitution and applicable regulatory framework. The Petitioner impugns the Respondents’ actions claiming that it is a direct violation of his constitutional rights and legitimate expectation. Accordingly, the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs against the Respondents:
a) A declaration that the actions and omissions of the Respondents amount to an infringement of the Petitioner's rights and freedoms under Articles 26, 28, 35, 43, 46 and 47 and of the Constitution and of Article 23(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
b) An order quashing the Respondents decision which required the Petitioner to undertake 6 additional units to be eligible for graduation.
c) An order compelling the Respondents to facilitate and allow the Petitioner's graduation without requiring the Petitioner to undertake the 6 additional units.
d) In the alternative and without prejudice to prayer (b) and (c) above an order compelling the 1 st Respondent to cater for the fees of the 6 additional units and all other related costs of undertaking the 6 additional units.
e) An order for award of compensation for the violation of the Petitioner's fundamental human rights and freedoms.
f) General damages.
g) Exemplary and aggravated damages.
h) Costs and interest at court rates from the date of Judgment.
i) Any other relief that the court shall deem fit.
Petitioners’ Case
3. The Petitioner enrolled in the 1 st Respondent’s educational institution to pursue a Bachelor of Commerce (CPA Exempt) programme, having been admitted vide an admission letter dated 26 th July 2017. He commenced his studies on 4 th September 2017. The Petitioner avers that at the time of admission; the programme required him to complete a total of thirty-two (32) units in order to qualify for the award of the degree.
4. The Petitioner avers that in April 2018 , he was informed by the 1 st Respondent’s Industrial Attachment Department that, owing to the fact that he was already in employment, he would only be required to furnish a copy of his employment letter and thereafter would be deemed to have undertaken the Industrial Attachment unit. He states that he was subsequently supervised at his workplace by a University Supervisor in accordance with the applicable requirements. However, he contends that he not awarded the results for the Industrial Attachment unit.
5. The Petitioner avers that in August 2018, he discovered that he still had fourteen (14) pending units despite having only two semesters remaining before graduation. He consequently requested the 1 st Respondent to restructure the seven units, which were scheduled as four weekday units and three weekend units, so that five units could be undertaken during weekdays and only two on Saturdays. The request was, however, declined on the ground that lecturers were unavailable at the proposed times. The 1 st Respondent advised students who were unable to undertake three units on Saturdays to defer such units until they were offered again. Acting on this advice, the Petitioner deferred two units.
6. According to the Petitioner, by the January to April 2019 semester, he only had three units remaining, namely Strategic Management Accounting, Audit and Assurance, both of which had been deferred, and the Research Project. He attributes the delay in completing the Research Project to the fact that his research topic was changed on three separate occasions. Owing to the fact that the remaining units were offered in different semesters, the Petitioner states that he was only able to complete the final unit during the January to April 2020 semester.
7. The Petitioner avers that this period coincided with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which physical classes were shifted to online learning. As such, the 1 st Respondent conducted a survey to ascertain whether students preferred online examinations or physical examinations. The Petitioner participated in the survey and indicated a preference for physical examinations. Thereafter, the 1 st Respondent communicated that both online and physical examinations would be offered. The dates for physical examinations would be communicated at a later date after the COVI-19 restrictions had been lifted.
8. The Petitioner depones that after waiting for a considerable period without receiving any communication, he followed up on the matter on 18 th March 2021. He states that on 31 st March 2021, he received an email from the 1 st Respondent informing him that he had been registered for a special examination in Strategic Management Accounting during the January to April 2021 examination period. Upon seeking clarification regarding the examination date, he was informed that further communication would be issued. However, by 20 th May 2021, no such communication had been received, prompting him to write to the 1 st Respondent. He contends that the 1 st Respondent, through a response dated 21 st May 2021, informed him that the examination had been scheduled for the same day at 5.30 p.m. He asserts that he only saw the email at 5.28 p.m., rendering it impossible for him to sit the examination. He eventually sat for the examination in May 2022.
9. The Petitioner further alleges that whereas his fellow students received their examination results, his results were withheld. This prompted him to instruct an advocate who issued a demand letter seeking their release. He claims that it was only after the demand letter was issued that the 1 st Respondent released the results.
10. The Petitioner further states that in October 2021, when his employment was due for review, he requested the 1 st Respondent to issue him with a letter for presentation to his employer indicating that he had only one pending unit. He avers that, to his surprise, the 1 st Respondent, through a correspondence dated 22 nd October 2022, informed him that he had eight pending units, six of which were additional units introduced following a curriculum review. He maintains that prior to that communication, the 1 st Respondent had never informed him of any curriculum changes affecting his programme. Consequently, he lodged a complaint regarding the matter.
11. The Petitioner depones that during a subsequent meeting with officials of the 1 st Respondent, he was informed that the Bachelor of Commerce (CPA Exempt) curriculum had been revised with effect from 2019 , increasing the programme requirements to thirty-eight (38) units . He was further informed that the revision had been necessitated by compliance with the 2 nd Respondent’s Universities' Standards and Guidelines, PROG/STD/02, which require that a Bachelor's degree programme in the Social Sciences comprise a minimum of 1,680 instructional hours . As a result, he was informed that he would not be eligible to graduate unless he completed the six additional units introduced under the revised curriculum.
12. The Petitioner contends that the 1 st Respondent communicated the curriculum changes only to newly admitted students and not to students who were already enrolled in the programme. He further alleges that although the 1 st Respondent initially offered to waive 50% of the fees payable for the additional units, it subsequently reneged on that offer and required him to pay the full fees.
13. The Petitioner decries that throughout his engagements with the 1 st Respondent, he was never adequately informed of the curriculum changes nor afforded sufficient notice to enable him prepare accordingly. He contends that the impugned actions had occasioned him substantial prejudice, including financial loss, delayed graduation, and inability to achieve anticipated career progression milestones. He therefore sought legal assistance from Kituo Cha Sheria on 26 th August 2022, following which a demand letter was served upon the 1 st Respondent. According to the Petitioner, the demand letter elicited no response.
14. The Petitioner further depones that, being dissatisfied with the conduct of the 1 st Respondent, he wrote to the 2 nd Respondent on 28 th February 2022 seeking clarification regarding the revised Bachelor of Commerce (CPA Exempt) curriculum, while copying the 1 st Respondent. He further approached the 2 nd Respondent on 30 th August 2022 and was advised to lodge a formal complaint, which he duly filed on 12 th September 2022.
15. Thereafter, on 15 th November 2022, the 2 nd Respondent wrote to the 1 st Respondent requesting particulars relating to the Petitioner, which information was subsequently provided. Upon making further inquiries, the Petitioner was informed that the 2 nd Respondent had already communicated its recommendations and proposed way forward to the 1 st Respondent. However, he asserts that the said recommendations were never shared with him and were not furnished prior to the institution of the present proceedings. He further states that his subsequent efforts to obtain the information from the 1 st Respondent has been futile.
16. Consequently, the Petitioner contends that the actions and omissions of the Respondents violated his rights under Articles 26, 28, 35(1)(b), 43(1)(f), 46 and 47 of the Constitution. He further alleges violations of Article 23(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
1 st Respondent’s Case
17. In opposition to the Petition, the 1 st Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 4 th July 2024 by Dr. David Mathuva , the Associate Dean, Academics and Student Affairs.
18. He confirms that the Petitioner was admitted to the 1 st Respondent institution on 25 th August 2017 to pursue a Bachelor of Commerce (CPA Exempt) programme, which commenced on 2 nd September 2017. He informs that the programme was set for two years and thus the Petitioner was expected to graduate in June 2020. He states that the applicable Student Handbook was the 2017 edition, under which students were required to complete thirty-two (32) units in order to qualify for graduation.
19. With regard to the Industrial Based Attachment (hereinafter referred to as IBA) unit, he depones that the 1 st Respondent maintains strict registration deadlines which all students are required to observe. He contends that the Petitioner applied for the IBA unit outside the prescribed timelines and that he admitted as much during a meeting held at Kituo Cha Sheria on 6 th September 2023. Although minutes of the meeting were prepared, he informs that the Petitioner declined to sign them.
20. He further explains that exemption from the IBA requirement is only available to students who have been continuously employed for more than six months at the time of registering for the unit. In his view, the Petitioner’s delayed registration demonstrates that he was not employed during the relevant attachment period. He additionally points out that the certificate of service relied upon by the Petitioner covered the period between May 2021 and November 2021, which did not correspond with the period in which he registered for attachment in 2018. Consequently, he maintains that the Petitioner was required to comply with the requirements applicable to non-working students but failed to do so.
21. Further, the 1 st Respondent depones that during the Kituo Cha Sheria meeting, the Petitioner was requested to provide a letter of employment, daily work logs for the attachment period and a work-based learning report to facilitate completion of the IBA process. He states that the Petitioner failed to submit the requisite work-based learning report and, as a result, the 1 st Respondent had no basis upon which to verify completion of the attachment requirement.
22. Regarding the Petitioner’s complaint concerning class scheduling, he avers that the 1 st Respondent prepares timetables after taking into account student enrolment, lecturer availability and institutional resources. He asserts therefore that it is not feasible to design timetables around the preferences of individual students. According to the 1 st Respondent, the Petitioner voluntarily deferred three units to subsequent semesters, thereby contributing to the delay in completion of his studies and graduation.
23. On the issue of the research project unit, the 1 st Respondent deponed that a supervisor was assigned to the Petitioner on 1 st September 2018. However, despite several attempts by the supervisor to engage the Petitioner and facilitate progress on the project, the Petitioner remained unresponsive. It was therefore surprising when the Petitioner later lodged a complaint alleging that the supervisor was the one who had failed to respond. The 1 st Respondent depones that following a meeting involving the course administrator, the Petitioner and the supervisor, the Petitioner undertook to cooperate and complete the project.
24. The 1 st Respondent deponed that in a meeting held on 1 st December, 2018 where the Petitioner was defending the proposal, the Petitioner behaved in a disorderly, rude and arrogant manner towards the moderator and was unwilling to receive feedback on his work. Furthermore, the Petitioner subsequently refused to meet with his supervisor the following day prompting the Research Coordinator to assign him a different supervisor. The 1 st Respondent deposes that, although the deadline for submission of the final research project was 29 th March 2019, the Petitioner completed his project on 18 th March 2020.
25. Concerning the Strategic Management Accounting examination, the 1 st Respondent depones that following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 1 st Respondent transitioned to online learning during the January to April 2020 semester. A survey was conducted to establish students’ preferred mode of examination and the Petitioner was among those who opted to undertake physical examinations. He explains that the conduct of physical examinations had to await the lifting of the COVID-19 restrictions, thereby occasioning delays in the examination process.
26. The 1 st Respondent further affirms that the Petitioner was informed on 31 st March 2021 that he had been scheduled to sit a special examination in Strategic Management Accounting. He informs that examination timetables are ordinarily uploaded to the institution’s e-learning platform where all students can access them and that the Petitioner had equal access to the said platform. He further states that the Petitioner’s results were released later than those of other students because his was a special examination.
27. With regard to the six additional units, the 1 st Respondent swore that the Bachelor of Commerce programme was reviewed in 2019 in order to align it with standards and guidelines issued by the 2 nd Respondent. He states that, the revised guidelines took effect on 29 th January 2019 and the curriculum changes were implemented from the May 2019 intake. He states that the revised curriculum applied to students enrolled in 2019 and 2020 and that those students were duly informed of the changes.
28. Furthermore, the 1 st Respondent deposed that because the Petitioner had not completed his Research Project and Industrial Based attachment units within the stipulated timeframes, he became a backlog student, and, consequently, became subject to the transitional arrangements implemented by the 1 st Respondent. The 1 st Respondent depones that the Petitioner was informed of this position when he inquired about his pending units through correspondence dated 22 nd October 2021 .
29. On the issue of fees, the 1 st Respondent depones that it had only offered a fee waiver to students who were midway through their studies when the curriculum review was introduced, namely students admitted in 2019 and 2020 . According to the 1 st Respondent, the Petitioner did not qualify for the concession because he was expected to have completed his studies and graduated in 2020 .
30. In addition, the 1 st Respondent asserted that according to its regulations, any backlog student rejoining a programme is required to comply with the curriculum in force as at the time of rejoining. However, the 1 st Respondent deponed that it is willing to negotiate an appropriate payment arrangement with the Petitioner and to provide any necessary support to facilitate the completion of his degree programme. The 1 st Respondent maintained that the Petitioner's predicament is as a result of his own failure to complete the programme requirements within the stipulated timelines which cannot be attributed to wrongdoing on the part of the 1 st Respondent.
2 nd Respondents’ Case
31. The 2 nd Respondent neither filed a response nor submissions.
Parties’ Submissions
Petitioner’s Submissions
32. In the submissions dated 21 st October 2025, Nelius Njuguna and Company Advocates, identified the key issues as: whether the 1 st Respondent’s actions and omissions, particularly the retrospective application of the revised 2019 curriculum, violated the Petitioner’s rights under Articles 26, 28, 35, 43 and 47 of the Constitution, whether the 2 nd Respondent failed in its statutory and constitutional obligations thereby infringing the Petitioner’s right to fair administrative action and access to information, whether the Respondents’ conduct breached the Petitioner’s legitimate expectation and right to education and socio-economic advancement under Article 43(1)(f) of the Constitution and whether the Petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought in the Petition .
33. On the first issue, Counsel submitted that the 1 st Respondent’s decision to revise the Bachelor of Commerce curriculum in 2019 and thereafter apply the revised requirements to students admitted in 2017, without prior notice, consultation or adequate communication, violated the Petitioner’s rights under Articles 35 and 47 of the Constitution. It was contended that the selective communication undertaken by the 1 st Respondent and the exclusion of the Petitioner’s cohort from notification regarding the curriculum changes amounted to procedural unfairness and contravened Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act. Reliance was placed in Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & Another [2015] eKLR , where the Court emphasized that Article 47 elevated fair administrative action into a constitutional imperative requiring transparency, reasonableness and procedural fairness in administrative decision-making.
34. Counsel further argued that the retrospective application of the 2019 curriculum offended the principle of legal certainty and the presumption against retroactive administrative action. According to Counsel, policies and regulations affecting substantive rights are presumed to operate prospectively unless a contrary intention is expressly stated. To support this point, reliance was placed in Monica Wamboi Ng’ang’a & Others v Council of Legal Education & 4 Others [2017] KEHC 8616 (KLR) , where the Court held that:
“I also agree with the petitioners that in any event the said decision having been reached way after the Petitioners had applied to the Council for clearance to join the Kenya School of Law could not apply retrospectively as was held Samwel Kamau Macharia & Another vs. Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & Another, Supreme Court at Nairobi, Appeal No. 2 of 2011 where the court observed that:
“As for noncriminal legislation, the general rule is that all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relates only to matters of procedure or evidence are prima facie prospective and retrospective effect is not to be given to them unless by express word and necessary implication, it appears that this was the intention of the legislative.’’
35. Counsel submitted that the Petitioner having been admitted under the 2017 curriculum, had a legitimate expectation that he would complete his studies under the academic framework prevailing at the time of admission. Counsel submitted that the retrospective imposition of the revised curriculum without notice or consultation violated both procedural and substantive legitimate expectations. Reliance was placed in Kevin K. Mwiti & Others v Kenya School of Law & 2 Others [2015] eKLR , where the Court observed that:
“A legitimate expectation arises where a person responsible for taking a decision has induced in someone a reasonable expectation that he will receive or retain a benefit or advantage. It is a basic principle of fairness that legitimate expectations ought not to be thwarted. The protection of legitimate expectations is at the root of the constitutional principle of the rule of law, which requires predictability and certainty in government's dealings with the public."
36. Further reliance was placed on R (Bhatt Murphy) v Independent Assessor [2008] EWCA Civ 755, Republic v Attorney General & Another ex parte Waswa & 2 Others [2005] 1 KLR 280, R v Devon County Council ex parte Baker [1995] 1 All ER 73 and Keroche Industries Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority & 5 Others [2007] KLR 240 .
37. Counsel additionally submitted that the unilateral alteration of the Petitioner’s graduation requirements without affording him an opportunity to be heard violated the rules of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem principle. In support reliance was placed in Sangram Singh v Election Tribunal, Koteh AIR 1955 SC 664 where it was held that:
“There must be ever present to the mind the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence, and that they should not be precluded from participating in them."
38. Comparable reliance was placed in Onyango Oloo v Attorney General [1986–1989] EA 456 and James Kanyiita Nderitu & Another v Marios Philotas Ghikas & Another [2016] KECA 470 (KLR) .
39. Counsel further maintained that the Petitioner’s delayed completion of the programme could not be attributed to negligence or personal choice. Rather, it was argued that the delay resulted from circumstances beyond his control, including the unavailability of deferred units, delays in feedback relating to research project topics and disruptions occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. In those circumstances, Counsel submitted that the 1 st Respondent ought to have implemented transitional arrangements accommodating affected students instead of imposing revised requirements retrospectively. Reliance was placed on Suchan Investment Ltd v Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 3 Others [2016] eKLR on the principle of proportionality in administrative action.
40. Turning to the role of the 2 nd Respondent in the second issue, Counsel submitted that under Sections 4 and 5(1)(a), (b), (e) and (l) of the Universities Act, the 2 nd Respondent bore a constitutional and statutory obligation to ensure that curriculum changes were implemented lawfully, transparently and fairly. It was argued that despite receiving the Petitioner’s complaint, the 2 nd Respondent failed to communicate its findings or decision, thereby violating Articles 35 and 47 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed in Katiba Institute v President’s Delivery Unit & 3 Others [2017] eKLR where it was emphasized that public bodies are under a duty to facilitate access to information where such information is necessary for the protection of rights.
41. On legitimate expectation, Counsel submitted in the third point that the Respondents’ conduct left the Petitioner in a state of uncertainty concerning his academic future, contrary to the principles articulated in Jesse Waweru Wahome & Others v Kenya Engineers Registration Board & Egerton University & Others [2012] eKLR as follows:
“In a country like ours where citizens place a premium on university education, it is not right to leave graduates in a suspended state where they do not know their fate especially where parents have made sacrifices to educate their children, students have taken out loans from the Higher Education Loan Board and are expected to re-pay these loans and the State has invested taxpayers money…This is a situation that cries out for justice.”
42. Additional reliance was placed in John Florence Maritime Services Limited & Another v Cabinet Secretary, Transport and Infrastructure & 3 Others [2021] KESC 39 (KLR) .
43. Counsel further argued that the exclusion of the Petitioner from communications relating to curriculum changes amounted to indirect discrimination and unequal treatment. Reliance was placed in John Kabui Mwai & 3 Others v Kenya National Examination Council & 2 Others [2011] eKLR where it was held that:
“It should be noted that discrimination which is forbidden by the Constitution is unfair or prejudicial treatment of a person or group of persons based on certain characteristics. (James Nyasora Nyarangi and Others -Vs- Attorney General, HC. Petition No. 298 of 2008 at Nairobi). The element of what is unfair or prejudicial treatment has to be determined objectively in the light of the facts of each case.”
44. Regarding remedies in the final issue, Counsel submitted that having demonstrated constitutional violations, the Petitioner was entitled to declaratory relief and compensatory damages. Reliance was placed in Gitobu Imanyara & 2 Others v Attorney General [2016] KECA 557 (KLR) , where the Court emphasized that:
45. “A declaration by the court will articulate the fact of the violation, but in most cases more will be required than words ... The fact that the right violated was a constitutional right adds an extra dimension to the wrong. An additional award may be needed to reflect the sense of public outrage, emphasize the importance of the constitutional right and the gravity of the breach, and deter further breaches."
46. Additional reliance was placed in Siewchand Ramanoop v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, PC Appeal No. 13 of 2004 , and Kenya National Examination Council v Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 Others [1997] eKLR .
47. Counsel therefore urged the Court to award appropriate compensation for the financial and emotional hardship allegedly suffered by the Petitioner as a result of the Respondents’ actions and deter similar administrative indifference in the future.
1 st Respondent’s Submissions
48. The 1 st Respondent opposed the Petition through submissions dated 15 th October 2024 and supplementary submissions dated 13 th March 2026 filed by Nyiha, Mukoma & Company Advocates. Counsel framed the issues for determination as: whether the revised 2019 curriculum had been retrospectively applied to the Petitioner’s cohort, whether the Petitioner’s constitutional rights had been violated, whether the Petitioner’s legitimate expectation had been infringed and whether the Petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought .
49. Counsel in the first issue disputed the allegation of retrospective application and submitted that the revised curriculum applied only to students admitted after 2019 and to those who had not completed their studies by 2020. According to Counsel, the implementation of the revised curriculum was consistent with the principles governing retrospective application of laws as discussed by the Supreme Court in Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & Another, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 2 of 2011 .
50. On the second issue, it was submitted that the Petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act and had not pleaded the alleged constitutional violations with the precision required by Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 4 of 1979) . Counsel argued that no evidence had been adduced to demonstrate how the right to life under Article 26 of the Constitution had been infringed.
51. With respect to Article 47 of the Constitution, Counsel maintained that the 1 st Respondent had taken reasonable measures to notify all students who were likely to be affected by the curriculum changes. Reliance was placed on Kevin K. Mwiti (supra) where it was held that:
“In my view, to justify interference the decision in question must be so grossly unreasonable that no reasonable authority addressing itself to the facts and the law would have arrived at such a decision. In other words such a decision must be deemed to be so outrageous in defiance of logic or acceptable moral standards that no sensible person applying his mind to the question to be decided would have arrived at it.”
52. Similar reliance was placed in Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 Others [2019] KEHC 9688 (KLR) , Republic v University of Nairobi ex parte Jackan Mwanyika Mwasi [2018] KEHC 958 (KLR) and Republic v Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya ex parte Vipichandra Bhatt t/a J. V. Bhatt & Company, HCMA No. 285 of 2006 .
53. Counsel argued that the Petitioner was not among the students affected by the curriculum review in 2019 because he was expected to graduate under the existing curricul
[...truncated]
1. The Petition dated 11 th March 2024, is supported by the Petitioner’s affidavit in support of similar date. The Petition challenges the implementation of curriculum changes introduced to the 1 st Respondent’s Bachelor of Commerce (CPA Exempt) Programme, on the basis of its adverse effect on his eligibility for graduation.
2. The instant dispute pertains the question of whether the decision requiring the Petitioner to undertake additional units is lawful, procedurally fair and consistent with the Constitution and applicable regulatory framework. The Petitioner impugns the Respondents’ actions claiming that it is a direct violation of his constitutional rights and legitimate expectation. Accordingly, the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs against the Respondents:
a) A declaration that the actions and omissions of the Respondents amount to an infringement of the Petitioner's rights and freedoms under Articles 26, 28, 35, 43, 46 and 47 and of the Constitution and of Article 23(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
b) An order quashing the Respondents decision which required the Petitioner to undertake 6 additional units to be eligible for graduation.
c) An order compelling the Respondents to facilitate and allow the Petitioner's graduation without requiring the Petitioner to undertake the 6 additional units.
d) In the alternative and without prejudice to prayer (b) and (c) above an order compelling the 1 st Respondent to cater for the fees of the 6 additional units and all other related costs of undertaking the 6 additional units.
e) An order for award of compensation for the violation of the Petitioner's fundamental human rights and freedoms.
f) General damages.
g) Exemplary and aggravated damages.
h) Costs and interest at court rates from the date of Judgment.
i) Any other relief that the court shall deem fit.
Petitioners’ Case
3. The Petitioner enrolled in the 1 st Respondent’s educational institution to pursue a Bachelor of Commerce (CPA Exempt) programme, having been admitted vide an admission letter dated 26 th July 2017. He commenced his studies on 4 th September 2017. The Petitioner avers that at the time of admission; the programme required him to complete a total of thirty-two (32) units in order to qualify for the award of the degree.
4. The Petitioner avers that in April 2018 , he was informed by the 1 st Respondent’s Industrial Attachment Department that, owing to the fact that he was already in employment, he would only be required to furnish a copy of his employment letter and thereafter would be deemed to have undertaken the Industrial Attachment unit. He states that he was subsequently supervised at his workplace by a University Supervisor in accordance with the applicable requirements. However, he contends that he not awarded the results for the Industrial Attachment unit.
5. The Petitioner avers that in August 2018, he discovered that he still had fourteen (14) pending units despite having only two semesters remaining before graduation. He consequently requested the 1 st Respondent to restructure the seven units, which were scheduled as four weekday units and three weekend units, so that five units could be undertaken during weekdays and only two on Saturdays. The request was, however, declined on the ground that lecturers were unavailable at the proposed times. The 1 st Respondent advised students who were unable to undertake three units on Saturdays to defer such units until they were offered again. Acting on this advice, the Petitioner deferred two units.
6. According to the Petitioner, by the January to April 2019 semester, he only had three units remaining, namely Strategic Management Accounting, Audit and Assurance, both of which had been deferred, and the Research Project. He attributes the delay in completing the Research Project to the fact that his research topic was changed on three separate occasions. Owing to the fact that the remaining units were offered in different semesters, the Petitioner states that he was only able to complete the final unit during the January to April 2020 semester.
7. The Petitioner avers that this period coincided with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which physical classes were shifted to online learning. As such, the 1 st Respondent conducted a survey to ascertain whether students preferred online examinations or physical examinations. The Petitioner participated in the survey and indicated a preference for physical examinations. Thereafter, the 1 st Respondent communicated that both online and physical examinations would be offered. The dates for physical examinations would be communicated at a later date after the COVI-19 restrictions had been lifted.
8. The Petitioner depones that after waiting for a considerable period without receiving any communication, he followed up on the matter on 18 th March 2021. He states that on 31 st March 2021, he received an email from the 1 st Respondent informing him that he had been registered for a special examination in Strategic Management Accounting during the January to April 2021 examination period. Upon seeking clarification regarding the examination date, he was informed that further communication would be issued. However, by 20 th May 2021, no such communication had been received, prompting him to write to the 1 st Respondent. He contends that the 1 st Respondent, through a response dated 21 st May 2021, informed him that the examination had been scheduled for the same day at 5.30 p.m. He asserts that he only saw the email at 5.28 p.m., rendering it impossible for him to sit the examination. He eventually sat for the examination in May 2022.
9. The Petitioner further alleges that whereas his fellow students received their examination results, his results were withheld. This prompted him to instruct an advocate who issued a demand letter seeking their release. He claims that it was only after the demand letter was issued that the 1 st Respondent released the results.
10. The Petitioner further states that in October 2021, when his employment was due for review, he requested the 1 st Respondent to issue him with a letter for presentation to his employer indicating that he had only one pending unit. He avers that, to his surprise, the 1 st Respondent, through a correspondence dated 22 nd October 2022, informed him that he had eight pending units, six of which were additional units introduced following a curriculum review. He maintains that prior to that communication, the 1 st Respondent had never informed him of any curriculum changes affecting his programme. Consequently, he lodged a complaint regarding the matter.
11. The Petitioner depones that during a subsequent meeting with officials of the 1 st Respondent, he was informed that the Bachelor of Commerce (CPA Exempt) curriculum had been revised with effect from 2019 , increasing the programme requirements to thirty-eight (38) units . He was further informed that the revision had been necessitated by compliance with the 2 nd Respondent’s Universities' Standards and Guidelines, PROG/STD/02, which require that a Bachelor's degree programme in the Social Sciences comprise a minimum of 1,680 instructional hours . As a result, he was informed that he would not be eligible to graduate unless he completed the six additional units introduced under the revised curriculum.
12. The Petitioner contends that the 1 st Respondent communicated the curriculum changes only to newly admitted students and not to students who were already enrolled in the programme. He further alleges that although the 1 st Respondent initially offered to waive 50% of the fees payable for the additional units, it subsequently reneged on that offer and required him to pay the full fees.
13. The Petitioner decries that throughout his engagements with the 1 st Respondent, he was never adequately informed of the curriculum changes nor afforded sufficient notice to enable him prepare accordingly. He contends that the impugned actions had occasioned him substantial prejudice, including financial loss, delayed graduation, and inability to achieve anticipated career progression milestones. He therefore sought legal assistance from Kituo Cha Sheria on 26 th August 2022, following which a demand letter was served upon the 1 st Respondent. According to the Petitioner, the demand letter elicited no response.
14. The Petitioner further depones that, being dissatisfied with the conduct of the 1 st Respondent, he wrote to the 2 nd Respondent on 28 th February 2022 seeking clarification regarding the revised Bachelor of Commerce (CPA Exempt) curriculum, while copying the 1 st Respondent. He further approached the 2 nd Respondent on 30 th August 2022 and was advised to lodge a formal complaint, which he duly filed on 12 th September 2022.
15. Thereafter, on 15 th November 2022, the 2 nd Respondent wrote to the 1 st Respondent requesting particulars relating to the Petitioner, which information was subsequently provided. Upon making further inquiries, the Petitioner was informed that the 2 nd Respondent had already communicated its recommendations and proposed way forward to the 1 st Respondent. However, he asserts that the said recommendations were never shared with him and were not furnished prior to the institution of the present proceedings. He further states that his subsequent efforts to obtain the information from the 1 st Respondent has been futile.
16. Consequently, the Petitioner contends that the actions and omissions of the Respondents violated his rights under Articles 26, 28, 35(1)(b), 43(1)(f), 46 and 47 of the Constitution. He further alleges violations of Article 23(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
1 st Respondent’s Case
17. In opposition to the Petition, the 1 st Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 4 th July 2024 by Dr. David Mathuva , the Associate Dean, Academics and Student Affairs.
18. He confirms that the Petitioner was admitted to the 1 st Respondent institution on 25 th August 2017 to pursue a Bachelor of Commerce (CPA Exempt) programme, which commenced on 2 nd September 2017. He informs that the programme was set for two years and thus the Petitioner was expected to graduate in June 2020. He states that the applicable Student Handbook was the 2017 edition, under which students were required to complete thirty-two (32) units in order to qualify for graduation.
19. With regard to the Industrial Based Attachment (hereinafter referred to as IBA) unit, he depones that the 1 st Respondent maintains strict registration deadlines which all students are required to observe. He contends that the Petitioner applied for the IBA unit outside the prescribed timelines and that he admitted as much during a meeting held at Kituo Cha Sheria on 6 th September 2023. Although minutes of the meeting were prepared, he informs that the Petitioner declined to sign them.
20. He further explains that exemption from the IBA requirement is only available to students who have been continuously employed for more than six months at the time of registering for the unit. In his view, the Petitioner’s delayed registration demonstrates that he was not employed during the relevant attachment period. He additionally points out that the certificate of service relied upon by the Petitioner covered the period between May 2021 and November 2021, which did not correspond with the period in which he registered for attachment in 2018. Consequently, he maintains that the Petitioner was required to comply with the requirements applicable to non-working students but failed to do so.
21. Further, the 1 st Respondent depones that during the Kituo Cha Sheria meeting, the Petitioner was requested to provide a letter of employment, daily work logs for the attachment period and a work-based learning report to facilitate completion of the IBA process. He states that the Petitioner failed to submit the requisite work-based learning report and, as a result, the 1 st Respondent had no basis upon which to verify completion of the attachment requirement.
22. Regarding the Petitioner’s complaint concerning class scheduling, he avers that the 1 st Respondent prepares timetables after taking into account student enrolment, lecturer availability and institutional resources. He asserts therefore that it is not feasible to design timetables around the preferences of individual students. According to the 1 st Respondent, the Petitioner voluntarily deferred three units to subsequent semesters, thereby contributing to the delay in completion of his studies and graduation.
23. On the issue of the research project unit, the 1 st Respondent deponed that a supervisor was assigned to the Petitioner on 1 st September 2018. However, despite several attempts by the supervisor to engage the Petitioner and facilitate progress on the project, the Petitioner remained unresponsive. It was therefore surprising when the Petitioner later lodged a complaint alleging that the supervisor was the one who had failed to respond. The 1 st Respondent depones that following a meeting involving the course administrator, the Petitioner and the supervisor, the Petitioner undertook to cooperate and complete the project.
24. The 1 st Respondent deponed that in a meeting held on 1 st December, 2018 where the Petitioner was defending the proposal, the Petitioner behaved in a disorderly, rude and arrogant manner towards the moderator and was unwilling to receive feedback on his work. Furthermore, the Petitioner subsequently refused to meet with his supervisor the following day prompting the Research Coordinator to assign him a different supervisor. The 1 st Respondent deposes that, although the deadline for submission of the final research project was 29 th March 2019, the Petitioner completed his project on 18 th March 2020.
25. Concerning the Strategic Management Accounting examination, the 1 st Respondent depones that following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 1 st Respondent transitioned to online learning during the January to April 2020 semester. A survey was conducted to establish students’ preferred mode of examination and the Petitioner was among those who opted to undertake physical examinations. He explains that the conduct of physical examinations had to await the lifting of the COVID-19 restrictions, thereby occasioning delays in the examination process.
26. The 1 st Respondent further affirms that the Petitioner was informed on 31 st March 2021 that he had been scheduled to sit a special examination in Strategic Management Accounting. He informs that examination timetables are ordinarily uploaded to the institution’s e-learning platform where all students can access them and that the Petitioner had equal access to the said platform. He further states that the Petitioner’s results were released later than those of other students because his was a special examination.
27. With regard to the six additional units, the 1 st Respondent swore that the Bachelor of Commerce programme was reviewed in 2019 in order to align it with standards and guidelines issued by the 2 nd Respondent. He states that, the revised guidelines took effect on 29 th January 2019 and the curriculum changes were implemented from the May 2019 intake. He states that the revised curriculum applied to students enrolled in 2019 and 2020 and that those students were duly informed of the changes.
28. Furthermore, the 1 st Respondent deposed that because the Petitioner had not completed his Research Project and Industrial Based attachment units within the stipulated timeframes, he became a backlog student, and, consequently, became subject to the transitional arrangements implemented by the 1 st Respondent. The 1 st Respondent depones that the Petitioner was informed of this position when he inquired about his pending units through correspondence dated 22 nd October 2021 .
29. On the issue of fees, the 1 st Respondent depones that it had only offered a fee waiver to students who were midway through their studies when the curriculum review was introduced, namely students admitted in 2019 and 2020 . According to the 1 st Respondent, the Petitioner did not qualify for the concession because he was expected to have completed his studies and graduated in 2020 .
30. In addition, the 1 st Respondent asserted that according to its regulations, any backlog student rejoining a programme is required to comply with the curriculum in force as at the time of rejoining. However, the 1 st Respondent deponed that it is willing to negotiate an appropriate payment arrangement with the Petitioner and to provide any necessary support to facilitate the completion of his degree programme. The 1 st Respondent maintained that the Petitioner's predicament is as a result of his own failure to complete the programme requirements within the stipulated timelines which cannot be attributed to wrongdoing on the part of the 1 st Respondent.
2 nd Respondents’ Case
31. The 2 nd Respondent neither filed a response nor submissions.
Parties’ Submissions
Petitioner’s Submissions
32. In the submissions dated 21 st October 2025, Nelius Njuguna and Company Advocates, identified the key issues as: whether the 1 st Respondent’s actions and omissions, particularly the retrospective application of the revised 2019 curriculum, violated the Petitioner’s rights under Articles 26, 28, 35, 43 and 47 of the Constitution, whether the 2 nd Respondent failed in its statutory and constitutional obligations thereby infringing the Petitioner’s right to fair administrative action and access to information, whether the Respondents’ conduct breached the Petitioner’s legitimate expectation and right to education and socio-economic advancement under Article 43(1)(f) of the Constitution and whether the Petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought in the Petition .
33. On the first issue, Counsel submitted that the 1 st Respondent’s decision to revise the Bachelor of Commerce curriculum in 2019 and thereafter apply the revised requirements to students admitted in 2017, without prior notice, consultation or adequate communication, violated the Petitioner’s rights under Articles 35 and 47 of the Constitution. It was contended that the selective communication undertaken by the 1 st Respondent and the exclusion of the Petitioner’s cohort from notification regarding the curriculum changes amounted to procedural unfairness and contravened Section 4(3) of the Fair Administrative Action Act. Reliance was placed in Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & Another [2015] eKLR , where the Court emphasized that Article 47 elevated fair administrative action into a constitutional imperative requiring transparency, reasonableness and procedural fairness in administrative decision-making.
34. Counsel further argued that the retrospective application of the 2019 curriculum offended the principle of legal certainty and the presumption against retroactive administrative action. According to Counsel, policies and regulations affecting substantive rights are presumed to operate prospectively unless a contrary intention is expressly stated. To support this point, reliance was placed in Monica Wamboi Ng’ang’a & Others v Council of Legal Education & 4 Others [2017] KEHC 8616 (KLR) , where the Court held that:
“I also agree with the petitioners that in any event the said decision having been reached way after the Petitioners had applied to the Council for clearance to join the Kenya School of Law could not apply retrospectively as was held Samwel Kamau Macharia & Another vs. Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & Another, Supreme Court at Nairobi, Appeal No. 2 of 2011 where the court observed that:
“As for noncriminal legislation, the general rule is that all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relates only to matters of procedure or evidence are prima facie prospective and retrospective effect is not to be given to them unless by express word and necessary implication, it appears that this was the intention of the legislative.’’
35. Counsel submitted that the Petitioner having been admitted under the 2017 curriculum, had a legitimate expectation that he would complete his studies under the academic framework prevailing at the time of admission. Counsel submitted that the retrospective imposition of the revised curriculum without notice or consultation violated both procedural and substantive legitimate expectations. Reliance was placed in Kevin K. Mwiti & Others v Kenya School of Law & 2 Others [2015] eKLR , where the Court observed that:
“A legitimate expectation arises where a person responsible for taking a decision has induced in someone a reasonable expectation that he will receive or retain a benefit or advantage. It is a basic principle of fairness that legitimate expectations ought not to be thwarted. The protection of legitimate expectations is at the root of the constitutional principle of the rule of law, which requires predictability and certainty in government's dealings with the public."
36. Further reliance was placed on R (Bhatt Murphy) v Independent Assessor [2008] EWCA Civ 755, Republic v Attorney General & Another ex parte Waswa & 2 Others [2005] 1 KLR 280, R v Devon County Council ex parte Baker [1995] 1 All ER 73 and Keroche Industries Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority & 5 Others [2007] KLR 240 .
37. Counsel additionally submitted that the unilateral alteration of the Petitioner’s graduation requirements without affording him an opportunity to be heard violated the rules of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem principle. In support reliance was placed in Sangram Singh v Election Tribunal, Koteh AIR 1955 SC 664 where it was held that:
“There must be ever present to the mind the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence, and that they should not be precluded from participating in them."
38. Comparable reliance was placed in Onyango Oloo v Attorney General [1986–1989] EA 456 and James Kanyiita Nderitu & Another v Marios Philotas Ghikas & Another [2016] KECA 470 (KLR) .
39. Counsel further maintained that the Petitioner’s delayed completion of the programme could not be attributed to negligence or personal choice. Rather, it was argued that the delay resulted from circumstances beyond his control, including the unavailability of deferred units, delays in feedback relating to research project topics and disruptions occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. In those circumstances, Counsel submitted that the 1 st Respondent ought to have implemented transitional arrangements accommodating affected students instead of imposing revised requirements retrospectively. Reliance was placed on Suchan Investment Ltd v Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 3 Others [2016] eKLR on the principle of proportionality in administrative action.
40. Turning to the role of the 2 nd Respondent in the second issue, Counsel submitted that under Sections 4 and 5(1)(a), (b), (e) and (l) of the Universities Act, the 2 nd Respondent bore a constitutional and statutory obligation to ensure that curriculum changes were implemented lawfully, transparently and fairly. It was argued that despite receiving the Petitioner’s complaint, the 2 nd Respondent failed to communicate its findings or decision, thereby violating Articles 35 and 47 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed in Katiba Institute v President’s Delivery Unit & 3 Others [2017] eKLR where it was emphasized that public bodies are under a duty to facilitate access to information where such information is necessary for the protection of rights.
41. On legitimate expectation, Counsel submitted in the third point that the Respondents’ conduct left the Petitioner in a state of uncertainty concerning his academic future, contrary to the principles articulated in Jesse Waweru Wahome & Others v Kenya Engineers Registration Board & Egerton University & Others [2012] eKLR as follows:
“In a country like ours where citizens place a premium on university education, it is not right to leave graduates in a suspended state where they do not know their fate especially where parents have made sacrifices to educate their children, students have taken out loans from the Higher Education Loan Board and are expected to re-pay these loans and the State has invested taxpayers money…This is a situation that cries out for justice.”
42. Additional reliance was placed in John Florence Maritime Services Limited & Another v Cabinet Secretary, Transport and Infrastructure & 3 Others [2021] KESC 39 (KLR) .
43. Counsel further argued that the exclusion of the Petitioner from communications relating to curriculum changes amounted to indirect discrimination and unequal treatment. Reliance was placed in John Kabui Mwai & 3 Others v Kenya National Examination Council & 2 Others [2011] eKLR where it was held that:
“It should be noted that discrimination which is forbidden by the Constitution is unfair or prejudicial treatment of a person or group of persons based on certain characteristics. (James Nyasora Nyarangi and Others -Vs- Attorney General, HC. Petition No. 298 of 2008 at Nairobi). The element of what is unfair or prejudicial treatment has to be determined objectively in the light of the facts of each case.”
44. Regarding remedies in the final issue, Counsel submitted that having demonstrated constitutional violations, the Petitioner was entitled to declaratory relief and compensatory damages. Reliance was placed in Gitobu Imanyara & 2 Others v Attorney General [2016] KECA 557 (KLR) , where the Court emphasized that:
45. “A declaration by the court will articulate the fact of the violation, but in most cases more will be required than words ... The fact that the right violated was a constitutional right adds an extra dimension to the wrong. An additional award may be needed to reflect the sense of public outrage, emphasize the importance of the constitutional right and the gravity of the breach, and deter further breaches."
46. Additional reliance was placed in Siewchand Ramanoop v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, PC Appeal No. 13 of 2004 , and Kenya National Examination Council v Republic ex parte Geoffrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 Others [1997] eKLR .
47. Counsel therefore urged the Court to award appropriate compensation for the financial and emotional hardship allegedly suffered by the Petitioner as a result of the Respondents’ actions and deter similar administrative indifference in the future.
1 st Respondent’s Submissions
48. The 1 st Respondent opposed the Petition through submissions dated 15 th October 2024 and supplementary submissions dated 13 th March 2026 filed by Nyiha, Mukoma & Company Advocates. Counsel framed the issues for determination as: whether the revised 2019 curriculum had been retrospectively applied to the Petitioner’s cohort, whether the Petitioner’s constitutional rights had been violated, whether the Petitioner’s legitimate expectation had been infringed and whether the Petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought .
49. Counsel in the first issue disputed the allegation of retrospective application and submitted that the revised curriculum applied only to students admitted after 2019 and to those who had not completed their studies by 2020. According to Counsel, the implementation of the revised curriculum was consistent with the principles governing retrospective application of laws as discussed by the Supreme Court in Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & Another, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 2 of 2011 .
50. On the second issue, it was submitted that the Petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Sections 107 and 109 of the Evidence Act and had not pleaded the alleged constitutional violations with the precision required by Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 4 of 1979) . Counsel argued that no evidence had been adduced to demonstrate how the right to life under Article 26 of the Constitution had been infringed.
51. With respect to Article 47 of the Constitution, Counsel maintained that the 1 st Respondent had taken reasonable measures to notify all students who were likely to be affected by the curriculum changes. Reliance was placed on Kevin K. Mwiti (supra) where it was held that:
“In my view, to justify interference the decision in question must be so grossly unreasonable that no reasonable authority addressing itself to the facts and the law would have arrived at such a decision. In other words such a decision must be deemed to be so outrageous in defiance of logic or acceptable moral standards that no sensible person applying his mind to the question to be decided would have arrived at it.”
52. Similar reliance was placed in Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 Others [2019] KEHC 9688 (KLR) , Republic v University of Nairobi ex parte Jackan Mwanyika Mwasi [2018] KEHC 958 (KLR) and Republic v Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya ex parte Vipichandra Bhatt t/a J. V. Bhatt & Company, HCMA No. 285 of 2006 .
53. Counsel argued that the Petitioner was not among the students affected by the curriculum review in 2019 because he was expected to graduate under the existing curricul
[...truncated]