'1. The Application before this for determination is the one dated 23.10.25 wherein the Applicants seek the following orders;
1) …Spent.
2) Pending the delivery of the judgment scheduled for the 21stNovember 2025, the court does issue an order staying the operationalization of the public notice dated 7th October 2025.
3) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue such further or consequential orders as are necessary to uphold and enforce its orders of 3rd September 2025.
4) Costs of this Application be provided for.
The Applicant’s Case;
2. On 3rd September 2025, this Court granted an order of stay restraining the 2nd Respondent from implementing its public notice dated 27th May 2025, which had introduced pre-registration examinations for veterinary graduates prior to internship pending the judgment on the 21st November 2025 on the substantive judicial review
3. It is their case that on 7th October 2025, the 2nd Respondent, issued a new public notice headed “Registration for Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Paraprofessionals Internship Programme 2025/2026”.
4. It is the Applicant’s case that while the new notice purports to invite Applications for internship, its substance reveals a clear continuation and implementation of the very impugned process that this Court had restrained and it advances the same administrative action that remains frozen by order of this Court.
5. They argue that this conduct not only risks rendering the pending judicial review proceedings nugatory but also undermines public confidence in the sanctity of judicial orders and the rule of law.
6. The Board has publicly claimed that it is “only inviting indexed students,” but the Applicant verily believes is a procedural pretext intended to give the impression of compliance while, in substance, violating the stay order.
7. The Applicant’s understanding of the stay order is that it restrained the entire internship process emanating from the impugned decision of 27th May 2025, and not merely the examination requirement.
8. The Applicants believe that any further step taken in connection with that process, including inviting Applications, indexing, shortlisting, or registration, contravenes both the letter and the spirit of the Court’s order.
9. They argue that the board cannot unilaterally redefine the order through administrative language or procedural maneuvers.
10. Obedience to a court order is not optional, conditional, or dependent on one’s interpretation of it. A party served with a valid court order is bound to comply fully and faithfully until such order is discharged by the Court. To do otherwise is to erode the very foundation upon which justice rests. They argue that they are directly prejudiced by the board’s actions.
11. According to them, the actions have caused significant anxiety and uncertainty among recent graduates who are now uncertain whether to apply, wait, or risk exclusion and the practical and financial consequences of being locked out of internship opportunities are severe and immediate.
The Applicant’s Submissions;
12. The Court issued a stay of the intended pre-registration examination which according to the applicants applies to the intended consequences of the examination such as inviting Applications for internship placement while the matter is pending in Court.
13. The 1st Respondent’s public notice of 7th October 2025 was issued in bad faith and is a punitive fightback against the Ex-Parte Applicants for lawfully challenging the administrative actions of the 1st Respondent.
14. They believe that the intended deadline by all means is meant to lock out the Ex-Parte Applicants and arbitrarily deny them their constitutionally guaranteed right of access to education.
15. The 1st Respondent argued that the notice was in conformity with the requirements of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development and as guided by the Public Service Internship Guideline.
16. According to the Applicants a perusal of the Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Para-Professionals Act, Cap 366 at Section 4 shows that the membership of the 1st Respondent consists of the Principal Secretary of the Ministry and the Director of Veterinary Services from whom the said notice emanates, among other officials.
17. They submit that the senior officials of the said Ministry and the Directorate of Veterinary Services are the same senior officials of the 1st Respondent.
18. It is malicious and unlawful for these same officials from the 1st Respondent to hide under the umbrella of the Ministry to issue directives knowing very well that the directives contravene the Court’s prevailing orders.
19. Section 6 of Cap 366 obligates the 1st Respondent ought to have informed the Ministry on the subsistence of this Court’s orders before taking action to publish the impugned notices.
The 1st Respondent’s Case;
20. It argues that the Kenya Veterinary Board regulates the entire practice by Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Paraprofessionals as guided by the Veterinary Surgeons & Veterinary Paraprofessional (VSVP) Act No 29 of 2011, VSVP Regulations 2013 Legal Notice No 48 and robust Code of Ethics published as Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Paraprofessionals (Code of Ethics) Regulations 2015 by the Registrar of KVB.
21. It is its case that the impugned Public Notice dated 7th October, 2025 is concerned with the general internship program under the mandate of the Directorate of Veterinary Services and was announced by the Principal Secretary, State Department for Livestock Development.
22. It argues that the Notice dated 9th October, 2025 issued by the Board, notifies the general public that registration of Veterinary Internship Program (VIP) 2025/2026 has commenced following the advertisement of the vacancies by the Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock Development.
23. It is its case that the Notice is meant for the Students who have been indexed and graduated in the following courses;
a) Bachelor of Veterinary (BVM)
b) Animal Health (Certificate, Diploma & Degree)
24. It is its case that the Public Notices confines themselves to the whole spectrum of internship program guided by the Public Service Internship Guideline and not the pre-registration examination process that was stayed by the Orders issued on 3rd September, 2025.
25. It argues that the Court specifically stayed the pre-registration examination scheduled for 11th to 12thSeptember 2025 but did not in any manner stay the internship program or allow the graduands subject of the said examinations (Applicants herein) who are not indexed yet to proceed for internship.
26. It is its case that the indexing of students by the Board is limited to all other categories of Animal Health students but not University students who were admitted to their respective Veterinary Programmes post 11th June, 2020 when the constitutionality of the Universities (Amendment) Act was affirmed by the High Court.
27. Prior to the 11th June, 2020, the Board had the mandate to index all students in the Veterinary field but with the introduction of the section 5A of the Universities Act CAP 210, the university students were excluded from being indexed by the Board and the power donated to the Commission on University Education.
28. It is its case that owing to the aforesaid Act, indexed students who can apply for announced internship program can only mean;
i. University students indexed by the Board under its statutory powers before 11th June, 2020.
ii. Those who graduated in Universities post 11thJune, 2020, have undertaken a pre-registration examination and have been indexed by the Board.
iii. Students of Certificate and Diploma in Animal Health related programmes from colleges who are indexed by the Board.
29. It is further its case that unless the powers of the Board expressly conferred by section 15(2) of VSVP Act 2011 are declared to be unconstitutional, the Board has the requisite powers to administer pre-registration examinations to determine the Day One competence of the graduates.
30. It further argues that it would be illegal for the Applicants herein to proceed for internship on the strength of the stay orders issued on the 3rd September 2025.
31. The notice of 27th May, 2025 which was stayed by the Court Orders, was limited to the announcement of examinations in September 2025 slated for 11th -12th September, 2025.
32. It invites the court to note that Prayer number 3 of the Chamber Summons dated 3rd September, 2025 seeks an order:
“That the grant of leave herein do stay the operationalization of the 1st Respondent’s Public Notice of 27th May, 2025.”
33. The said Notice targeted graduates who were admitted to the University after the 11th of June, 2020 when the constitutionality of the Universities (Amendment) Act was affirmed by the High Court and were not indexed by the Board as their previous peers in respect to the courses of Bachelors of Veterinary Medicine (BVM) and Animal Health (Certificate, Diploma & Degree).
34. The Board complied with the Orders and communicated postponement of the pre-registration examinations to the affected candidates.
35. It argues the Applicants herein shall not suffer any prejudice since internship program will start in January, 2026 and the judgement in this matter shall be rendered on the 21st November, 2025 when the legality of the pre-registration shall have been determined.
36. It would be against public policy and interest to allow the Applicants herein to forego the requisite processes prior to internship whereas their peers have previously undergone the said processes (graduation, pre-registration examinations, indexing and internship) and acquired the requisite qualification to start practice through internship as advertised by the Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock Development.
37. Staying the 2025/2026 Veterinary Internship Program would be against public interest.
38. The 1st Respondent ensured compliance was achieved just a day after the Court Order was pronounced this Honourable Court by effecting official communication vide sample of emails dated 5th September, 2025, all marked as MTA-4 communicating the postponement of the pre-registration examinations to the affecting 305 candidates who had applied and paid the requisite fees for the said Pre-Registration examinations.
39. The Applicants’ never attached the correct notice on the face of the record which indicates that the lapse of the Application date for internship program shall be on the 14th November, 2025 and not the 30th October, 2025 as the Applicants had alluded.
40. It is argued that it is unethical for parties to attach misleading notices to persuade the Court to grant stay orders especially when the Application is meant to be dispensed Exparte and interim stay orders are to be issued at the first instance of the hearing of the said Application just as is in our case.
41. The Applicants attached the wrong Notice quoting the notice dated 7th October, 2025 but annexed a misleading notice with a lapsing date of 30th October, 2025 at the expense of other qualified 1,400 candidates, who have already been issued with internship numbers after undertaking the pre-registration which,the 8 Applicants herein have adamantly refused to take causing unexplainable injustice to the 1, 400 candidates who have successfully been indexed after passing the Pre-examinations and they are in full compliance with the public notice date 7th October, 2025 and are ready to embark for the said internship program slated for January, 2026.
42. In all fairness and in the quest of promoting justice, how about the same rights as accorded under the said Article 43 for the qualified 1, 400 KVB candidates ready for internship as advertised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development in comparison to the 8 Applicants herein who are graduates who have adamantly and willfully refused to comply as per Section 15 (2) of VSVP Act and also as per VSVP Guidelines Framework.
43. In addressing, the question whether the right to access education under Article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 is absolute or same can be limited by legitimate situations such as regulations by professional bodies.
44. In the case of Odhiambo & 2 others v Kenya School of Law & 6 others (Constitutional Petition E008 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 1346 (KLR) (10 February 2025) (Ruling); This case established that the Council of Legal Education (CLE) is mandated to ensure quality assurance of law graduates before admission to the Kenya School of Law (KSL). The court held that it was within the CLE''s and KSL''s mandate to enforce specific, mandatory qualifications set out in the relevant Acts of Parliament (Legal Education Act and KSL Act), and that persons who have not attained these basic minimum requirements do not qualify for admission.
45. Muamar Nabeel Onyango Khan Vs Council of Legal Education & 2 Others, Justice A.O. Muchelule dismissed the Petition on the 31stJanuary, 2014 and quoted inter alia,
“Back to the crucial, and only question: did the petitioner qualify to be admitted to the Kenya School of Law? Once again, it is emphasized that the decision to admit or not to admit belonged to the Respondents. Once they showed that they were acting within the law, doing so fairly and that they were subjecting the petitioner to the same standards they were subjecting other candidates, the court cannot interfere. The Respondents must be left with the power to insist on the highest possible professional standards for those who wish to qualify as advocates.”
46. The Office of the 1st Respondent is mandated as provided under Section 15 (2) and (3) of the Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Paraprofessionals Act. (Act no. 29, 2011): -
a) Section 15 (2) –as stated inter alia; – ‘The Board may in its discretion require an Applicant under this section to undertake such examinations as it may prescribe to satisfy itself that the Applicant’s knowledge and skill qualify such person for registration;
b) Section 15 (3)-The examination referred to in subsection (2) may be conducted by the Board or by any other authority or institution appointed by the Board, and such examination shall be conducted subject to such terms and conditions as the Board may determine.
47. The KVB; - Part 1 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, & Fisheries, State of Department of Livestock Guidelines for Veterinary Internship Programme states inter alia that; -
(a) Eligibility for Internship
The following are requirements for entry into the program:
i) Evidence of indexing as a veterinary medicine student;
ii) Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine Certificate from an Institution recognized by the KVB 5;
iii) Passing of a qualifying examination determined by the Board for Veterinary graduates qualified from institutions not recognized by the KVB;
iv) Temporary registration certificate from the KVB;
v) National Identification Card;
vi) Personal Identification Number (PIN) from the Kenya Revenue Authority;
vii) An Application;
viii) Insurance (medical and accident);
ix) Certificate of good conduct; and
x) Colored passport photographs.
48. Section 15 (2) and (3) of the said Act, read together with Part 1 of the Guidelines for Veterinary Internship Programme as state in paragraph 8 above, we find the legal statutory framework anchored in our laws mandating the 1st Respondent to offer timely Pre-Registration Examinations to Veterinary Surgeons Graduates and other Veterinary Paraprofessionals before they can proceed for internship.
49. The standard has been applied to all interns of September Series and list of the said interns is marked as MTA-5 and others previously before them. This means that, the Applicants are not prejudiced in any manner, Nevertheless, instead of unfairly blocking the chance of their qualified peers from undertaking the internship, the Applicants herein have a chance to be admitted for the next cohort series which follows after the cohort of January intake, it’s not like, this is the conclusion of internship, after every 52 weeks, the internship program is being advertised
Analysis and Determination;
The issue for determination is whether the court can issue an order staying the operationalization of the public notice dated 7th October 2025 pending the delivery of the judgment scheduled for the 21st November 2025.
50. On 4th September 2025 this court issued the following orders: -
1) Prayers 2 of The Application is allowed.
2) Stay is granted in line with prayer 3 pending the hearing and determination of the substantive Application.
3) Prayer 3 sought order that the grant of leave herein do stay the operationalization of the 1st Respondent''s public notice of 27th May 2025.
Judgment is supposed to be delivered on 21st November 2025.
51. The Respondents there after placed public notice dated 7th October 2025 inviting eligible students to apply.
52. The court has looked at the Notice that was issued on alongside the current one and noted that the second Notice is for registration of the veterinary internship programme (VIP) for the 2025/26 cohort.
53. The Applicants are final-year students of the Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and related Animal Health degree and diploma programmes from duly accredited universities, who have successfully completed the prescribed academic and practical training and are poised to commence statutory internship placements essential for professional registration.
54. On 27th May 2025, the 1st Respondent published a notice to the general public introducing a pre-registration examination for veterinary surgeons and veterinary paraprofessionals, which had been scheduled for 11th and 12th September 2025.
55. The 1st Respondent thereafter issued an explainer styled as "Frequently Asked Questions on the Kenya Veterinary Board (KVB) Pre-Registration Exams,'' describing the examination as determining eligibility for the veterinary internship programme.
56. The Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Paraprofessionals Regulations 2013 provide an express framework for the internship of graduates in veterinary medicine and animal health.
57. The court is satisfied that the 1st Respondent has the statutory authority and mandate to issue the impugned notice.
58. The court has looked at the notice and notes that it relates to: Those who have been indexed and graduated in; Bachelors of Veterinary medicine, Animal health (Certificate, diploma or degree).
59. The Applicants in the substantive suit identified and clearly described themselves as final-year students of the Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and related Animal Health degree and diploma programmes from duly accredited universities.
60. Contrary to the Applicant''s argument, the court is satisfied that the substance of the Notice does not amount to a continuation and implementation of the impugned process that this Court had restrained.
61. The court is of the view that the impugned Notice does not advance the administrative action that remains frozen by order of this Court.
62. I say so because the Applicants are not graduates. In the circumstance the notice that they are challenging and using as the basis for the prayer for the stay of proceedings does not relate to them. It relates to graduates and I so hold.
63. If the court grants the stay order as sought, then it will amount to penalizing innocent graduates who are not parties to this suit who might be eligible for the advertised internship programme.
64. This court is under duty to always protect, promote and fulfil the rights of all citizens. Eligible graduates must not suffer from a blanket condemnation unheard since that will offend their right to fair hearing as guaranteed under Article 47 of the constitution and I so hold.
65. Granting the orders that are sought by Applicants who are in any event not graduates without giving eligible graduates an opportunity to be heard will amount to denying the graduates the equal benefit of the law as guaranteed under the Article 27 of the Constitution. This court refuses to take that route.
66. The Respondents have also raised the issue of the violation of the right to education in its submissions. The doctrine of exhaustion dictates that the issue can be postponed for determination within the substantive suit.
Disposition;
67. The Application lacks merit.
Order:
The Application is dismissed with costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 6th day of November, 2025.
'
1) …Spent.
2) Pending the delivery of the judgment scheduled for the 21stNovember 2025, the court does issue an order staying the operationalization of the public notice dated 7th October 2025.
3) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue such further or consequential orders as are necessary to uphold and enforce its orders of 3rd September 2025.
4) Costs of this Application be provided for.
The Applicant’s Case;
2. On 3rd September 2025, this Court granted an order of stay restraining the 2nd Respondent from implementing its public notice dated 27th May 2025, which had introduced pre-registration examinations for veterinary graduates prior to internship pending the judgment on the 21st November 2025 on the substantive judicial review
3. It is their case that on 7th October 2025, the 2nd Respondent, issued a new public notice headed “Registration for Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Paraprofessionals Internship Programme 2025/2026”.
4. It is the Applicant’s case that while the new notice purports to invite Applications for internship, its substance reveals a clear continuation and implementation of the very impugned process that this Court had restrained and it advances the same administrative action that remains frozen by order of this Court.
5. They argue that this conduct not only risks rendering the pending judicial review proceedings nugatory but also undermines public confidence in the sanctity of judicial orders and the rule of law.
6. The Board has publicly claimed that it is “only inviting indexed students,” but the Applicant verily believes is a procedural pretext intended to give the impression of compliance while, in substance, violating the stay order.
7. The Applicant’s understanding of the stay order is that it restrained the entire internship process emanating from the impugned decision of 27th May 2025, and not merely the examination requirement.
8. The Applicants believe that any further step taken in connection with that process, including inviting Applications, indexing, shortlisting, or registration, contravenes both the letter and the spirit of the Court’s order.
9. They argue that the board cannot unilaterally redefine the order through administrative language or procedural maneuvers.
10. Obedience to a court order is not optional, conditional, or dependent on one’s interpretation of it. A party served with a valid court order is bound to comply fully and faithfully until such order is discharged by the Court. To do otherwise is to erode the very foundation upon which justice rests. They argue that they are directly prejudiced by the board’s actions.
11. According to them, the actions have caused significant anxiety and uncertainty among recent graduates who are now uncertain whether to apply, wait, or risk exclusion and the practical and financial consequences of being locked out of internship opportunities are severe and immediate.
The Applicant’s Submissions;
12. The Court issued a stay of the intended pre-registration examination which according to the applicants applies to the intended consequences of the examination such as inviting Applications for internship placement while the matter is pending in Court.
13. The 1st Respondent’s public notice of 7th October 2025 was issued in bad faith and is a punitive fightback against the Ex-Parte Applicants for lawfully challenging the administrative actions of the 1st Respondent.
14. They believe that the intended deadline by all means is meant to lock out the Ex-Parte Applicants and arbitrarily deny them their constitutionally guaranteed right of access to education.
15. The 1st Respondent argued that the notice was in conformity with the requirements of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development and as guided by the Public Service Internship Guideline.
16. According to the Applicants a perusal of the Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Para-Professionals Act, Cap 366 at Section 4 shows that the membership of the 1st Respondent consists of the Principal Secretary of the Ministry and the Director of Veterinary Services from whom the said notice emanates, among other officials.
17. They submit that the senior officials of the said Ministry and the Directorate of Veterinary Services are the same senior officials of the 1st Respondent.
18. It is malicious and unlawful for these same officials from the 1st Respondent to hide under the umbrella of the Ministry to issue directives knowing very well that the directives contravene the Court’s prevailing orders.
19. Section 6 of Cap 366 obligates the 1st Respondent ought to have informed the Ministry on the subsistence of this Court’s orders before taking action to publish the impugned notices.
The 1st Respondent’s Case;
20. It argues that the Kenya Veterinary Board regulates the entire practice by Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Paraprofessionals as guided by the Veterinary Surgeons & Veterinary Paraprofessional (VSVP) Act No 29 of 2011, VSVP Regulations 2013 Legal Notice No 48 and robust Code of Ethics published as Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Paraprofessionals (Code of Ethics) Regulations 2015 by the Registrar of KVB.
21. It is its case that the impugned Public Notice dated 7th October, 2025 is concerned with the general internship program under the mandate of the Directorate of Veterinary Services and was announced by the Principal Secretary, State Department for Livestock Development.
22. It argues that the Notice dated 9th October, 2025 issued by the Board, notifies the general public that registration of Veterinary Internship Program (VIP) 2025/2026 has commenced following the advertisement of the vacancies by the Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock Development.
23. It is its case that the Notice is meant for the Students who have been indexed and graduated in the following courses;
a) Bachelor of Veterinary (BVM)
b) Animal Health (Certificate, Diploma & Degree)
24. It is its case that the Public Notices confines themselves to the whole spectrum of internship program guided by the Public Service Internship Guideline and not the pre-registration examination process that was stayed by the Orders issued on 3rd September, 2025.
25. It argues that the Court specifically stayed the pre-registration examination scheduled for 11th to 12thSeptember 2025 but did not in any manner stay the internship program or allow the graduands subject of the said examinations (Applicants herein) who are not indexed yet to proceed for internship.
26. It is its case that the indexing of students by the Board is limited to all other categories of Animal Health students but not University students who were admitted to their respective Veterinary Programmes post 11th June, 2020 when the constitutionality of the Universities (Amendment) Act was affirmed by the High Court.
27. Prior to the 11th June, 2020, the Board had the mandate to index all students in the Veterinary field but with the introduction of the section 5A of the Universities Act CAP 210, the university students were excluded from being indexed by the Board and the power donated to the Commission on University Education.
28. It is its case that owing to the aforesaid Act, indexed students who can apply for announced internship program can only mean;
i. University students indexed by the Board under its statutory powers before 11th June, 2020.
ii. Those who graduated in Universities post 11thJune, 2020, have undertaken a pre-registration examination and have been indexed by the Board.
iii. Students of Certificate and Diploma in Animal Health related programmes from colleges who are indexed by the Board.
29. It is further its case that unless the powers of the Board expressly conferred by section 15(2) of VSVP Act 2011 are declared to be unconstitutional, the Board has the requisite powers to administer pre-registration examinations to determine the Day One competence of the graduates.
30. It further argues that it would be illegal for the Applicants herein to proceed for internship on the strength of the stay orders issued on the 3rd September 2025.
31. The notice of 27th May, 2025 which was stayed by the Court Orders, was limited to the announcement of examinations in September 2025 slated for 11th -12th September, 2025.
32. It invites the court to note that Prayer number 3 of the Chamber Summons dated 3rd September, 2025 seeks an order:
“That the grant of leave herein do stay the operationalization of the 1st Respondent’s Public Notice of 27th May, 2025.”
33. The said Notice targeted graduates who were admitted to the University after the 11th of June, 2020 when the constitutionality of the Universities (Amendment) Act was affirmed by the High Court and were not indexed by the Board as their previous peers in respect to the courses of Bachelors of Veterinary Medicine (BVM) and Animal Health (Certificate, Diploma & Degree).
34. The Board complied with the Orders and communicated postponement of the pre-registration examinations to the affected candidates.
35. It argues the Applicants herein shall not suffer any prejudice since internship program will start in January, 2026 and the judgement in this matter shall be rendered on the 21st November, 2025 when the legality of the pre-registration shall have been determined.
36. It would be against public policy and interest to allow the Applicants herein to forego the requisite processes prior to internship whereas their peers have previously undergone the said processes (graduation, pre-registration examinations, indexing and internship) and acquired the requisite qualification to start practice through internship as advertised by the Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock Development.
37. Staying the 2025/2026 Veterinary Internship Program would be against public interest.
38. The 1st Respondent ensured compliance was achieved just a day after the Court Order was pronounced this Honourable Court by effecting official communication vide sample of emails dated 5th September, 2025, all marked as MTA-4 communicating the postponement of the pre-registration examinations to the affecting 305 candidates who had applied and paid the requisite fees for the said Pre-Registration examinations.
39. The Applicants’ never attached the correct notice on the face of the record which indicates that the lapse of the Application date for internship program shall be on the 14th November, 2025 and not the 30th October, 2025 as the Applicants had alluded.
40. It is argued that it is unethical for parties to attach misleading notices to persuade the Court to grant stay orders especially when the Application is meant to be dispensed Exparte and interim stay orders are to be issued at the first instance of the hearing of the said Application just as is in our case.
41. The Applicants attached the wrong Notice quoting the notice dated 7th October, 2025 but annexed a misleading notice with a lapsing date of 30th October, 2025 at the expense of other qualified 1,400 candidates, who have already been issued with internship numbers after undertaking the pre-registration which,the 8 Applicants herein have adamantly refused to take causing unexplainable injustice to the 1, 400 candidates who have successfully been indexed after passing the Pre-examinations and they are in full compliance with the public notice date 7th October, 2025 and are ready to embark for the said internship program slated for January, 2026.
42. In all fairness and in the quest of promoting justice, how about the same rights as accorded under the said Article 43 for the qualified 1, 400 KVB candidates ready for internship as advertised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development in comparison to the 8 Applicants herein who are graduates who have adamantly and willfully refused to comply as per Section 15 (2) of VSVP Act and also as per VSVP Guidelines Framework.
43. In addressing, the question whether the right to access education under Article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 is absolute or same can be limited by legitimate situations such as regulations by professional bodies.
44. In the case of Odhiambo & 2 others v Kenya School of Law & 6 others (Constitutional Petition E008 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 1346 (KLR) (10 February 2025) (Ruling); This case established that the Council of Legal Education (CLE) is mandated to ensure quality assurance of law graduates before admission to the Kenya School of Law (KSL). The court held that it was within the CLE''s and KSL''s mandate to enforce specific, mandatory qualifications set out in the relevant Acts of Parliament (Legal Education Act and KSL Act), and that persons who have not attained these basic minimum requirements do not qualify for admission.
45. Muamar Nabeel Onyango Khan Vs Council of Legal Education & 2 Others, Justice A.O. Muchelule dismissed the Petition on the 31stJanuary, 2014 and quoted inter alia,
“Back to the crucial, and only question: did the petitioner qualify to be admitted to the Kenya School of Law? Once again, it is emphasized that the decision to admit or not to admit belonged to the Respondents. Once they showed that they were acting within the law, doing so fairly and that they were subjecting the petitioner to the same standards they were subjecting other candidates, the court cannot interfere. The Respondents must be left with the power to insist on the highest possible professional standards for those who wish to qualify as advocates.”
46. The Office of the 1st Respondent is mandated as provided under Section 15 (2) and (3) of the Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Paraprofessionals Act. (Act no. 29, 2011): -
a) Section 15 (2) –as stated inter alia; – ‘The Board may in its discretion require an Applicant under this section to undertake such examinations as it may prescribe to satisfy itself that the Applicant’s knowledge and skill qualify such person for registration;
b) Section 15 (3)-The examination referred to in subsection (2) may be conducted by the Board or by any other authority or institution appointed by the Board, and such examination shall be conducted subject to such terms and conditions as the Board may determine.
47. The KVB; - Part 1 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, & Fisheries, State of Department of Livestock Guidelines for Veterinary Internship Programme states inter alia that; -
(a) Eligibility for Internship
The following are requirements for entry into the program:
i) Evidence of indexing as a veterinary medicine student;
ii) Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine Certificate from an Institution recognized by the KVB 5;
iii) Passing of a qualifying examination determined by the Board for Veterinary graduates qualified from institutions not recognized by the KVB;
iv) Temporary registration certificate from the KVB;
v) National Identification Card;
vi) Personal Identification Number (PIN) from the Kenya Revenue Authority;
vii) An Application;
viii) Insurance (medical and accident);
ix) Certificate of good conduct; and
x) Colored passport photographs.
48. Section 15 (2) and (3) of the said Act, read together with Part 1 of the Guidelines for Veterinary Internship Programme as state in paragraph 8 above, we find the legal statutory framework anchored in our laws mandating the 1st Respondent to offer timely Pre-Registration Examinations to Veterinary Surgeons Graduates and other Veterinary Paraprofessionals before they can proceed for internship.
49. The standard has been applied to all interns of September Series and list of the said interns is marked as MTA-5 and others previously before them. This means that, the Applicants are not prejudiced in any manner, Nevertheless, instead of unfairly blocking the chance of their qualified peers from undertaking the internship, the Applicants herein have a chance to be admitted for the next cohort series which follows after the cohort of January intake, it’s not like, this is the conclusion of internship, after every 52 weeks, the internship program is being advertised
Analysis and Determination;
The issue for determination is whether the court can issue an order staying the operationalization of the public notice dated 7th October 2025 pending the delivery of the judgment scheduled for the 21st November 2025.
50. On 4th September 2025 this court issued the following orders: -
1) Prayers 2 of The Application is allowed.
2) Stay is granted in line with prayer 3 pending the hearing and determination of the substantive Application.
3) Prayer 3 sought order that the grant of leave herein do stay the operationalization of the 1st Respondent''s public notice of 27th May 2025.
Judgment is supposed to be delivered on 21st November 2025.
51. The Respondents there after placed public notice dated 7th October 2025 inviting eligible students to apply.
52. The court has looked at the Notice that was issued on alongside the current one and noted that the second Notice is for registration of the veterinary internship programme (VIP) for the 2025/26 cohort.
53. The Applicants are final-year students of the Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and related Animal Health degree and diploma programmes from duly accredited universities, who have successfully completed the prescribed academic and practical training and are poised to commence statutory internship placements essential for professional registration.
54. On 27th May 2025, the 1st Respondent published a notice to the general public introducing a pre-registration examination for veterinary surgeons and veterinary paraprofessionals, which had been scheduled for 11th and 12th September 2025.
55. The 1st Respondent thereafter issued an explainer styled as "Frequently Asked Questions on the Kenya Veterinary Board (KVB) Pre-Registration Exams,'' describing the examination as determining eligibility for the veterinary internship programme.
56. The Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Paraprofessionals Regulations 2013 provide an express framework for the internship of graduates in veterinary medicine and animal health.
57. The court is satisfied that the 1st Respondent has the statutory authority and mandate to issue the impugned notice.
58. The court has looked at the notice and notes that it relates to: Those who have been indexed and graduated in; Bachelors of Veterinary medicine, Animal health (Certificate, diploma or degree).
59. The Applicants in the substantive suit identified and clearly described themselves as final-year students of the Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and related Animal Health degree and diploma programmes from duly accredited universities.
60. Contrary to the Applicant''s argument, the court is satisfied that the substance of the Notice does not amount to a continuation and implementation of the impugned process that this Court had restrained.
61. The court is of the view that the impugned Notice does not advance the administrative action that remains frozen by order of this Court.
62. I say so because the Applicants are not graduates. In the circumstance the notice that they are challenging and using as the basis for the prayer for the stay of proceedings does not relate to them. It relates to graduates and I so hold.
63. If the court grants the stay order as sought, then it will amount to penalizing innocent graduates who are not parties to this suit who might be eligible for the advertised internship programme.
64. This court is under duty to always protect, promote and fulfil the rights of all citizens. Eligible graduates must not suffer from a blanket condemnation unheard since that will offend their right to fair hearing as guaranteed under Article 47 of the constitution and I so hold.
65. Granting the orders that are sought by Applicants who are in any event not graduates without giving eligible graduates an opportunity to be heard will amount to denying the graduates the equal benefit of the law as guaranteed under the Article 27 of the Constitution. This court refuses to take that route.
66. The Respondents have also raised the issue of the violation of the right to education in its submissions. The doctrine of exhaustion dictates that the issue can be postponed for determination within the substantive suit.
Disposition;
67. The Application lacks merit.
Order:
The Application is dismissed with costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 6th day of November, 2025.
'