1. Leave was granted, to the ex parte applicant herein, on 4th March 2026, to initiate Judicial Review proceedings. He then filed the Motion, dated 13th March 2026, for declaratory, certiorari, mandamus and prohibition orders, directed at the respondent, with relation to a decision, contained in letters dated 2nd December 2025 and 20th January 2026, by the respondent, suspending him from the respondent University until January 2027.
2. The declaration sought is to declare the said suspension to have been in violation of his rights under Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution. The certiorari is meant to quash the said decision. The prohibition is to stop the respondent from preventing him from graduating in 2026. The mandamus is to compel the respondent to give to him his examination transcripts and degree certificate upon the graduation in 2026.
3. The principle pleading is the statutory statement. The facts, recited in there, are that the ex parte applicant is a student with the respondent, having been admitted in 2021, for a Bachelor of Science degree, before he changed to Bachelor of Commerce. He undertook training for the first academic year in 2021/2022; the second academic year in 2022/2023; the third academic year in 2023/2024; and the fourth and final year 2024/2025. He completed his studies on 15th July 2025, and was due to graduate in November 2025.
4. On 20th October 2025, he got a letter, dated 18th October 2025, summoning him to a meeting of the Student Academic Disciplinary Committee, where he was charged with the examination irregularity of impersonation, for allegedly sitting an examination on behalf of a Ndombi Sulubi Sally. He alleged that he had previously been forced to make a handwritten confession, at the scene of the examination, on 6th August 2025.
5. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted, on 31st October 2025. The membership comprised of 20 to 50 members, including 2 student representatives. The person chairing then allowed a legal representative to read out the charges, as laid out in the letter of 18th October 2025, whereupon he was invited to explain himself, after which members were permitted to ask him questions. Rule /Regulation 6.5, which was the basis of the charge and the penal consequences, was read out. The meeting ended with a communication that the verdict would be conveyed later.
6. The verdict later came, by a letter, dated 2nd December 2025, from the Senate of the respondent, based on the recommendations of the Student Affairs and Disciplinary Committee, stating that he had been found guilty of violating Regulation 6.5, on academic misconduct in examinations, by impersonating a candidate in an examination. The Senate resolved to suspend him from the University, for 1 academic year, that meant January to December 2026, with the resumption date being January 2027.
7. He avers that he was a stranger to those regulations, as he was only familiar with a rules and regulations document that he had signed during admission. He decided to appeal, and he lodged the relevant documentation for that purpose. His principal argument was that he had completed his academic work, in July 2025, and all what was remaining was the graduation ceremony. He argued that, on account of that, there was nothing to suspend. He also argued that the 1-year suspension ought to have run from September 2025 to June 2026, consistent with the academic year, and that a suspension from January 2026 to January 2027 meant he was suspended for 2 years. He pointed out that he was excluded from the November 2025 graduation ceremony. He prayed that the period of suspension be treated as running from September 2025 to June 2026.
8. He was called for the hearing of his appeal, on 15th January 2026, and was allowed to attend the same with a legal representative. He attended before a committee of 3. It emerged that the academic year, for government sponsored students like him, was 2 semesters, of 15 weeks, which run between September to April of the following year. It also emerged that his studies terminated in April 2025, but he had to undergo an attachment programme, which extended that period to 29th July 2025. He argued that he could only be suspended for the 2025/2026 academic year, which run from September 2025 to April 2026. He also argued that he had concluded his studies, and there was no nexus between that and the alleged impersonation. His appeal was dismissed, vide a decision made in a letter dated 20th January 2026.
9. He averred that following completion of studies, he had taken up temporary employment, with Eco Bank Limited, from 2nd October 2025, pending graduation in November 2025, but the same was terminated, and he was discharged, on account of the failed graduation.
10. The application is grounded on violation of principles of natural justice, ultra vires, irrelevant considerations and failure to consider relevant matters, unreasonableness and irrationality, illegality, procedural impropriety and bad faith.
11. The statutory statement is verified by an affidavit, which has attached copies of the documents that are cited in the statement.
12. The respondent has replied to the application, vide an affidavit sworn by one of its officers, on 10th March 2026. It is averred that the ex parte applicant is a student at the University, who knowingly and intentionally sat an examination on behalf of another candidate, which amounted to the offence of impersonation, which he admitted, and a sanction was imposed for it. It is asserted that impersonation is a serious academic offence, whose prescribed sanction is expulsion. It is stated that the respondent exercised leniency, by imposing a 1-year suspension instead, after taking into account the confession by the ex parte applicant, his plea that he had acted out of sympathy for a friend, his sincere plea for forgiveness, and the fact that he had completed his academics and was awaiting graduation. It is stated that the ex parte applicant was afforded an opportunity to be heard by the disciplinary committee, before sentence, and was granted an opportunity to appeal, in accordance with the relevant statutes of the respondent.
13. On the merits of the application, it is averred that the statutory statement does not disclose, prima facie, arguable grounds on illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. It is submitted that the ex parte applicant, instead, raises factual disputes around computation of the academic year, severity and timing of the suspension and the internal appeal process.
14. In response, to the matter of the length of the academic calendar, it is stated that the academic calendar includes a long vacation, which is operative for academic progression. It is asserted that the interpretation of the academic year to refer to the academic function, could not be termed to be a legal error, nor a statutory breach, to bring it within the purview of judicial review. It is further stated that the issue at the heart of the matter was discipline, for here was a student, who had completed his academic units, coming back to sit an examination for another student. It is asserted that the mere fact that he had completed his studies and was awaiting graduation, did not mean that he was not still bound by the University policies, and, by sitting an examination on behalf of another student, he was violating examination regulations, and was subject to the University disciplinary process.
15. Several documents are attached to the replying affidavit. These include a copy of the Academic Policies and Procedures Manual, a copy of a filled Invigilation Record Form, a copy of a filled Academic Offence Incidence Form, an extract of the minutes of the Student Academic Disciplinary Committee meeting of 31st October 2025, an extract of the minutes of the 8th University Senate meeting of 2025, the letter dated 2nd December 2025, and the Report of the Student Disciplinary Appeals Committee.
16. To that replying affidavit, the ex parte applicant has reacted, vide his further affidavit, sworn on 30th March 2026. The issues addressed in it are around the unlawfulness of the university statutes/regulations and the Charter; the unfairness of the hearing and bias; the illegality of the impugned suspension letters, its being ultra vires the decision of the Senate; irrationality around the ingenious change of suspension from one academic year to 2 academic years, and the decision of the Vice-Chancellor being ultra vires the University Act. He has attached copies of the University academic calendar for the years 2025 and 2026, in respect of the respondent.
17. The respondent has reacted to that further affidavit by the ex parte applicant, by filing its own further affidavit, through one of its officers. On the unlawfulness of the respondent’s statutes, it is averred that there is a distinction between the statutes defined under the Universities Act, made by the university Council, and regulations or internal policies. It is asserted that the Academic Misconduct in Examinations or Class Test Regulations were internal administrative policies regulating academic integrity, and they did not qualify to be university statutes, and did not require gazettement. The affidavit has also responded to other factual issues raised by the ex parte applicant.
18. The matter is canvassed by way of written submissions. Both sides have filed written submissions, complete with authorities.
19. The ex parte applicant has framed 6 issues for determination, around whether the regulations relied on to make the impugned decision, being ungazetted, were legal or lawful or had force of law; whether the conduct and composition of the 3 tribunals, being the Student Affairs and Disciplinary Committee, the Senate and the Student Disciplinary Appeals Committee, violated his constitutional and statutory rights to a fair impartial lawful and procedurally fair hearing; whether the 2 impugned suspension letters were illegal, for being ultra vires the Senate decision and without jurisdiction; whether the decision to change the period of suspension from 1 academic year to 2 academic years is irrational; whether the decision of the Vice Chancellor over the appeal was ultra vires the Universities Act; and whether the respondent had jurisdiction to suspend the ex parte applicant.
20. Regarding the statutes under which the ex parte applicant was tried, that is the Misconduct in Examination and Class Test Regulations, within the University Policies and Procedures Manual, were not valid, for they were not gazetted, contrary to sections 21, 23 and 35(1)(a)(ii) of the Universities Act, Cap 210, Laws of Kenya and Clause 38(4) of the Charter of the respondent. Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU), Moi University Chapter & 2 others vs. Moi University [2026] KEELRC 275 (KLR) and Kenei vs. Egerton University & another [2023] KEELRC 918 (KLR), are cited, where it had been held that university statutes are statutory instruments within the meaning of section 2 of the Statutory Instruments Act, Cap 2A, Laws of Kenya, for they are made in exercise of power conferred by an Act of Parliament, and they cannot acquire force of law until they are gazetted.
21. On the 3 tribunals being conducted in a manner that did not accord respect to the constitutional and statutory rights of the ex parte applicant, it is submitted that, contrary to the terms of Misconduct in Examinations and Class test Regulations, the ex parte applicant was not furnished with the copies of the information available to the committee ahead of the hearing, nor with an invitation to make or submit a statement in mitigation or explanation, including from witnesses, in addition to any other previously submitted, 7 days before the meeting. Articles 47 of the Constitution, section 4(3)(a)(b)(f)(g) and (4)(c) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, Geothermal Development Company Limited vs. Attorney General & 3 others [2013] eKLR and Ogina vs. Standard Chartered Bank (K) Limited [2026] KEELRC 625 (KLR).
22. There is also a submission around the composition of the tribunals that tried the ex parte applicant, that is the Students Affairs and Disciplinary Committee, the Senate and the Students Disciplinary Appeals Committee. It is stated that the Head of Lega, Ms. Irura, and the Deputy Vice Chancellor, Prof. Onywera, sat in all 3 tribunals. It is argued that that raised the possibility of bias towards their own causes, regarding their decisions. Ms. Irura sat as member and legal adviser to all 3 Tribunals, while Prof. Onywera sat as the Chair of 2 of the tribunals. Mwashori vs. Independent Electoral Commission of KCA University [2026] eKLR and Wanjigi vs. Chebukati [2022] eKLR are cited.
23. On the legality of the suspension letter, it is argued that the same was not aligned to the resolution of the Students Affairs and Disciplinary Committee, as adopted by the Senate. The 2 had resolved that the ex parte applicant be suspended for 1 academic year in the 2025/2026 academic year. When that resolution was communicated to the ex parte applicant, by the letter of 2nd December 2025, the Registrar indicated that the suspension ran from January to December 2026. Pastoli vs. Kabale District Local Government Council & others [2008] 2 EA 300, is cited about illegality, where the decision-making body commits an error of law in the process of taking the decision. It is submitted that the alteration of the decision of Senate was without jurisdiction, and was illegal.
24. Tied up with the above is the submission on alteration or change of the suspension from 1 academic year to 2 academic years. It is argued that the Student Affairs and Disciplinary Committee and the Senate suspended the ex parte applicant for 1 academic year, 2025/2026, running from September 2025 to April 2026, which meant that he would be eligible for graduation in 2026. It is submitted that the decision to change that meant that he would now be due to graduate in 2027. It is argued that, as the ex parte applicant was due to graduate in 2025, suspending his graduation to 2027, technically means suspension for 2 years. It is argued that that decision was irrational or unreasonable. Associated Provincial Picture Limited vs. Wensbury Corporation [1947] 2 All ER 680 [1948] 1 KB 223 and Republic vs. Commissioner of Cooperatives, ex parte Kirinyaga Tea Growers Cooperative Savings & Credit Society Limited [1999] 1 EA 245 are cited.
25. On the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, on the appeal being ultra vires the Universities Act, it is submitted that it was irrational for an inferior authority, that is the Vice Chancellor, who is a member of the Senate, to singularly sit on appeal against the decision of the Senate, for purposes of setting aside or otherwise approving its decision. It is argued that the Vice-Chancelor was inferior to the Senate, as he was its member, and the decision of the Senate could only be appealed at the Council of the respondent. It is argued that, based on section 35(1)(b) of the Universities Act, that the decision of the Student Affairs and Disciplinary Committee should be submitted to the Senate, not to the Vice-Chanceller, for review. Section 24(2) of the Statutory Instruments Act and 31(b) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, and Sum, Deputy Principal of Moi Girls School Nairobi vs. Njaggah, Principal of Moi Girls Nairobi & 2 others; Attorney General (Interested Party) [2024] KEELRC 324 (KLR) are cited.
26. On whether the respondent had jurisdiction to suspend the ex parte applicant, it is submitted that the ex parte applicant had already completed his studies, and, therefore, the respondent had no jurisdiction over him. It is argued that the provision that he was found liable under, Regulation 6.5.1(5), did not apply, as it related only to candidates, yet the applicant was not a candidate. It is submitted that the applicable provision was Regulation 6.5.1(16)(b).
27. On its part, the respondent flags 7 issues for determination, around whether the Academic Policies and Procedure Manual (2024) required gazettement for it to be valid and enforceable; whether the University Charter and statutes were invalid; whether the respondent acted ultra vires its mandate; whether the ex parte applicant was accorded a fair hearing, in accordance with the Constitution and applicable law; whether there existed bias, conflict of interest, or improper influence in the disciplinary process; whether the applicant has established duress or coercion, and whether the sanction imposed was unreasonable or disproportionate; and whether the threshold for grant of judicial review remedies has been met.
28. On whether the academic regulations required gazettement, it is submitted that there was a misapprehension of the statutory framework governing universities. It is argued that the Universities Act made a distinction, between statutes of a university and internal policies or regulations, and that, under section 34(1)(a) of the Universities Act, only statutes approved by a university council are for gazettement. It is submitted that the Universities Act gives universities autonomy to manage their internal academic affairs. It is stated that the Academic Policies and Procedure Manual (2024) fell in the category of internal administrative policies, to regulate student conduct, which did not require gazettement, as it did not amount to a university statute, within the Statutory Instruments Act. Republic of Kenya vs. University of Nairobi & 2 others ex parte Patrick Best Oyeso [2018] eKLR.
29. On the validity of the University Charter and the statutes, it is submitted that the respondent had processed its charter and statutes, and submitted them to the Cabinet Secretary, and the same received presidential assent. It is argued that it was the duty of the Cabinet Secretary to cause their gazettement, and not that of the respondent. It is submitted that that notwithstanding, the respondent remained accredited, by the Commission for Higher Education, which recognised its mandate, and that a finding, that its Charter and statutes were invalid, for lack of gazettement, would mean that it ought not graduate students and issue final certificates. It is further submitted that the assent by the President, to the Charter, remained valid, unless revoked under section 22 of the Universities Act.
30. On whether the respondent acted ultra vires, it is submitted that the ex parte applicant has not demonstrated that the respondent had acted outside of statutory or Charter based authority, and it is asserted that the acts of the respondent were grounded in law. It is argued that the Vice-Chancellor was the chief executive of the university, under section 39(2) of the Universities Act, with overall responsibility for administration and student discipline. That authority is further reinforced by the Charter of the respondent. It is further submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted pursuant to mandate, and implementation of the Senate decision fell within the administrative authority of the Vice-Chancellor. Republic vs. Senate Examinations Disciplinary Committee & another Ex parte Shadrack Mbau [2006] eKLR and Republic vs. Kenyatta University ex parte Njoroge Humphrey Mbuthi [2015] eKLR are cited.
31. On whether the ex parte applicant had been afforded a fair hearing, it is stated that Article 47 of the Constitution, which is operationalised by the Fair Administrative Action Act, requires decisions to be fair, reasonable and procedurally fair. It is argued that the ex parte applicant was notified of the allegations against him, invited to respond, heard by the disciplinary committee and accorded an opportunity to appeal. It is submitted that the procedural steps undertaken satisfied the requirements of fairness. The ex parte applicant attended all the sessions, at the primary hearing and on appeal, in the presence of his Advocate, where he admitted the charge and offered mitigation. Suchan Investment Limited vs. Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 3 others [2016] eKLR and Mwashori v Independent Electoral Commission of KCA University (IECK) & 8 others [2026] KEHC 697 (KLR) are cited, on the point that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, and not the correctness of the decision itself, and that fairness must be assessed contextually, taking into account the nature of the decision and the circumstances of each case.
32. On allegations of bias and conflict of interest, it is submitted that there was no evidence adduced on them. Pastoli vs. Kabale District Local Government Council & others [2008] 2 EA 300 is cited, for the argument that the test for bias would be whether there exists a real likelihood or reasonable apprehension of bias. It is submitted that the mere fact that certain members participated in multiple institutional processes did not establish bias. It is argued that the ex parte applicant did not demonstrate any personal interest, improper motive or pre-judgement on the part of the decision-makers. It is stated that the head of Legal Services only participated as an ex officio member, and played no deliberative or decision-making role.
33. On the allegation of duress or coercion, it is submitted that the same was not substantiated. PAO & others vs. Lau Yiu & another [1979] 3 All ER 65 is cited, for the argument that the legal standard for duress requires proof of coercion sufficient to vitiate consent, and that the factors to take into account would include whether the individual protested, whether alternatives were available, and whether steps were taken to repudiate the alleged acts of coercion. It is argued that the ex parte applicant participated in the proceedings, reiterated his position in the subsequent processes, but did not raise any complaint of coercion at any stage. It is further argued that the student or candidate, for whom the ex parte applicant sat the examination, appeared at the Committee and the appeals, and confessed to collusion with the ex parte applicant. On admissions, section 61 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80, Laws of Kenya, section 207(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75, Laws of Kenya, and Muchenga vs. Republic [2025] KEHC 7377 (KLR) are cited.
34. On the sanction being unreasonable or disproportionate, it is argued that impersonation was an academic offence which went to the core of academic integrity and institutional credibility. It is further submitted that that universities have a statutory and moral obligation to uphold academic standards, and disciplinary sanctions are necessary in that regard. Republic vs. Egerton University, ex parte Robert Kipkemboi Kosgei is cited. It is argued that the 1-year suspension was proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
35. On whether the threshold for grant of the orders sought was met, Municipal Council of Mombasa vs. Republic, Umoja Consultants Limited [2002] eKLR is cited, to point out that judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process, rather than with the merits of the decision. It is submitted that the ex parte applicant had not established the illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety of the decision. The court is cautioned against substituting the impugned decision with its own.
36. It is submitted, on certiorari, that the same would issue where there is exercise of excess jurisdiction or violation of rules of natural justice. It is stated that the respondent acted within its Charter, and gave the ex parte applicant a fair hearing, by presenting all the material against him, and ensured that he got all the opportunities to be heard. It is submitted that the ex parte applicant has not demonstrated, with precision, how his stated rights were violated.
37. On mandamus, it is submitted that that order is issued where a statute imposes a duty, but leaves discretion, on the mode of performing the duty, to those executing the duty. It cannot issue to command the performance of the duty in a specific way. It is asserted that it compels performance of a clear duty. On prohibition, it is submitted that the same would not be available where a decision has already been made, for it is intended to prevent the making of the decision. Dande & 3 others vs. Inspector General of Police, National Police Service & 5 others [2023] is cited, to make the point that it does not lie to correct the course, practice or procedure of the inferior tribunal, or a wrong decision on the merits of the proceedings, but for excess jurisdiction or absence of it and departure from rules of natural justice.
38. The remit of a court, exercising Judicial Review jurisdiction, has been discussed in a number of cases, among them Municipal Council of Mombasa vs. Republic, Umoja Consultants Limited [2002] eKLR, where the court discussed what ought to be considered when judicial review orders are sought. It should be about the process leading up to the making of the impugned decision. That would naturally raise the issue of jurisdiction, to make the decision, as the first criteria. The next would be issues around natural justice, whether the parties affected had been given an opportunity to be heard prior to the decision-making. The issue of what was considered, and an assessment of whether what was considered was relevant. It would not be a review of the merits of the decision, but of the process of decision-making. Pastoli vs. Kabale Local Government Council & others [2008] 2 EA 300 brought into the matrix consideration of issues around illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. These summarise jurisdiction, natural justice and fair administrative action.
39. These proceedings relate to a disciplinary process, that a student was taken through, with respect to misconduct during examinations. It did not relate to misconduct during examinations that he was required to sit, but rather examinations relating to a unit that he was not taking. Indeed, he had even completed his coursework and examinations, and he was not due to sit any examination. The allegation was that he sat an examination for another candidate or student. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, in which he participated, and a resolution was reached, that he would be suspended for a year. A challenge to that process, mounted here in court, by way of judicial review, cannot be on the merits of that decision, around whether the decision was exercised properly or whether the evidence was properly analysed or considered, but on the process leading to or around arriving at that decision. Going by Municipal Council of Mombasa vs. Republic, Umoja Consultants Limited [2002] eKLR, the court, seized of a judicial review application over it, would only consider it on the basis of jurisdiction, natural justice and fair administrative action.
40. The pleadings, in judicial review proceedings, take the form of the statutory statement. It is trite that parties are bound by their pleadings. Therefore, this determination shall be limited to what is pleaded in the statutory statement filed herein, as elaborated in the verifying affidavit, and other affidavits filed by the ex parte applicant and the respondent.
41. 4 orders are sought in the statutory statement, namely declaration, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. These proceedings are premised on the Common Law remedy of judicial review, rather than the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act. The Common Law Judicial Review is not as broad as that under the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act. At Common Law, there are only 3 judicial review remedies, being certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Declaration is, therefore, not a remedy under the Common Law Judicial Review. It would not be available for granting and consideration in this case. I will, therefore, only consider the 3 Common Law Judicial Review reliefs.
42. The 3 remedies are sought on the basis of the 2 letters, the one dated 2nd December 2025 and the other dated 20th January 2026, which suspended the ex parte applicant from the university. I am invited to quash the decision contained in those 2 letters. But, what exactly do the 2 letters say?
43. The letter dated 2nd December 2025 communicates a decision of the Senate of the respondent, made on 5th November 2025, which found the ex parte applicant guilty of violating the policy on Academic Misconduct in Examination or Class test Regulations, more specifically section 6.5(16), which provides that a student, found guilty of impersonation or attempted impersonation of a candidate, during an examination or coursework, was to be expelled. The verdict was that the ex parte applicant had been suspended from the respondent university for 1 academic year, running from January to December 2026, and his studentship was to resume in January 2027. It also gave him a right of appeal to the Vice-Chancellor, within 14 days.
44. The letter of 20th January 2026, on the other hand, communicates the outcome of the appeal, and it is to the effect that the appeal had been deliberated upon by the Student Disciplinary Appeals Committee, and that the decision of the Senate had been upheld, in terms of the finding of guilty and the suspension for 1 academic year, with a resumption date of January 2027.
45. The purport of the 2 letters is that the studentship of the ex parte applicant has been suspended for 1 academic year, running between January and December 2026, with a resumption date in January 2027. That is the decision that is under challenge in these proceedings.
46. The scope and extent of the grounds of the challenge are set out in Part D of the statutory statement, in paragraphs 18 through to 26. The challenge is founded on violation of principles of natural justice, ultra vires, irrelevant conside
[...truncated]
2. The declaration sought is to declare the said suspension to have been in violation of his rights under Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution. The certiorari is meant to quash the said decision. The prohibition is to stop the respondent from preventing him from graduating in 2026. The mandamus is to compel the respondent to give to him his examination transcripts and degree certificate upon the graduation in 2026.
3. The principle pleading is the statutory statement. The facts, recited in there, are that the ex parte applicant is a student with the respondent, having been admitted in 2021, for a Bachelor of Science degree, before he changed to Bachelor of Commerce. He undertook training for the first academic year in 2021/2022; the second academic year in 2022/2023; the third academic year in 2023/2024; and the fourth and final year 2024/2025. He completed his studies on 15th July 2025, and was due to graduate in November 2025.
4. On 20th October 2025, he got a letter, dated 18th October 2025, summoning him to a meeting of the Student Academic Disciplinary Committee, where he was charged with the examination irregularity of impersonation, for allegedly sitting an examination on behalf of a Ndombi Sulubi Sally. He alleged that he had previously been forced to make a handwritten confession, at the scene of the examination, on 6th August 2025.
5. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted, on 31st October 2025. The membership comprised of 20 to 50 members, including 2 student representatives. The person chairing then allowed a legal representative to read out the charges, as laid out in the letter of 18th October 2025, whereupon he was invited to explain himself, after which members were permitted to ask him questions. Rule /Regulation 6.5, which was the basis of the charge and the penal consequences, was read out. The meeting ended with a communication that the verdict would be conveyed later.
6. The verdict later came, by a letter, dated 2nd December 2025, from the Senate of the respondent, based on the recommendations of the Student Affairs and Disciplinary Committee, stating that he had been found guilty of violating Regulation 6.5, on academic misconduct in examinations, by impersonating a candidate in an examination. The Senate resolved to suspend him from the University, for 1 academic year, that meant January to December 2026, with the resumption date being January 2027.
7. He avers that he was a stranger to those regulations, as he was only familiar with a rules and regulations document that he had signed during admission. He decided to appeal, and he lodged the relevant documentation for that purpose. His principal argument was that he had completed his academic work, in July 2025, and all what was remaining was the graduation ceremony. He argued that, on account of that, there was nothing to suspend. He also argued that the 1-year suspension ought to have run from September 2025 to June 2026, consistent with the academic year, and that a suspension from January 2026 to January 2027 meant he was suspended for 2 years. He pointed out that he was excluded from the November 2025 graduation ceremony. He prayed that the period of suspension be treated as running from September 2025 to June 2026.
8. He was called for the hearing of his appeal, on 15th January 2026, and was allowed to attend the same with a legal representative. He attended before a committee of 3. It emerged that the academic year, for government sponsored students like him, was 2 semesters, of 15 weeks, which run between September to April of the following year. It also emerged that his studies terminated in April 2025, but he had to undergo an attachment programme, which extended that period to 29th July 2025. He argued that he could only be suspended for the 2025/2026 academic year, which run from September 2025 to April 2026. He also argued that he had concluded his studies, and there was no nexus between that and the alleged impersonation. His appeal was dismissed, vide a decision made in a letter dated 20th January 2026.
9. He averred that following completion of studies, he had taken up temporary employment, with Eco Bank Limited, from 2nd October 2025, pending graduation in November 2025, but the same was terminated, and he was discharged, on account of the failed graduation.
10. The application is grounded on violation of principles of natural justice, ultra vires, irrelevant considerations and failure to consider relevant matters, unreasonableness and irrationality, illegality, procedural impropriety and bad faith.
11. The statutory statement is verified by an affidavit, which has attached copies of the documents that are cited in the statement.
12. The respondent has replied to the application, vide an affidavit sworn by one of its officers, on 10th March 2026. It is averred that the ex parte applicant is a student at the University, who knowingly and intentionally sat an examination on behalf of another candidate, which amounted to the offence of impersonation, which he admitted, and a sanction was imposed for it. It is asserted that impersonation is a serious academic offence, whose prescribed sanction is expulsion. It is stated that the respondent exercised leniency, by imposing a 1-year suspension instead, after taking into account the confession by the ex parte applicant, his plea that he had acted out of sympathy for a friend, his sincere plea for forgiveness, and the fact that he had completed his academics and was awaiting graduation. It is stated that the ex parte applicant was afforded an opportunity to be heard by the disciplinary committee, before sentence, and was granted an opportunity to appeal, in accordance with the relevant statutes of the respondent.
13. On the merits of the application, it is averred that the statutory statement does not disclose, prima facie, arguable grounds on illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. It is submitted that the ex parte applicant, instead, raises factual disputes around computation of the academic year, severity and timing of the suspension and the internal appeal process.
14. In response, to the matter of the length of the academic calendar, it is stated that the academic calendar includes a long vacation, which is operative for academic progression. It is asserted that the interpretation of the academic year to refer to the academic function, could not be termed to be a legal error, nor a statutory breach, to bring it within the purview of judicial review. It is further stated that the issue at the heart of the matter was discipline, for here was a student, who had completed his academic units, coming back to sit an examination for another student. It is asserted that the mere fact that he had completed his studies and was awaiting graduation, did not mean that he was not still bound by the University policies, and, by sitting an examination on behalf of another student, he was violating examination regulations, and was subject to the University disciplinary process.
15. Several documents are attached to the replying affidavit. These include a copy of the Academic Policies and Procedures Manual, a copy of a filled Invigilation Record Form, a copy of a filled Academic Offence Incidence Form, an extract of the minutes of the Student Academic Disciplinary Committee meeting of 31st October 2025, an extract of the minutes of the 8th University Senate meeting of 2025, the letter dated 2nd December 2025, and the Report of the Student Disciplinary Appeals Committee.
16. To that replying affidavit, the ex parte applicant has reacted, vide his further affidavit, sworn on 30th March 2026. The issues addressed in it are around the unlawfulness of the university statutes/regulations and the Charter; the unfairness of the hearing and bias; the illegality of the impugned suspension letters, its being ultra vires the decision of the Senate; irrationality around the ingenious change of suspension from one academic year to 2 academic years, and the decision of the Vice-Chancellor being ultra vires the University Act. He has attached copies of the University academic calendar for the years 2025 and 2026, in respect of the respondent.
17. The respondent has reacted to that further affidavit by the ex parte applicant, by filing its own further affidavit, through one of its officers. On the unlawfulness of the respondent’s statutes, it is averred that there is a distinction between the statutes defined under the Universities Act, made by the university Council, and regulations or internal policies. It is asserted that the Academic Misconduct in Examinations or Class Test Regulations were internal administrative policies regulating academic integrity, and they did not qualify to be university statutes, and did not require gazettement. The affidavit has also responded to other factual issues raised by the ex parte applicant.
18. The matter is canvassed by way of written submissions. Both sides have filed written submissions, complete with authorities.
19. The ex parte applicant has framed 6 issues for determination, around whether the regulations relied on to make the impugned decision, being ungazetted, were legal or lawful or had force of law; whether the conduct and composition of the 3 tribunals, being the Student Affairs and Disciplinary Committee, the Senate and the Student Disciplinary Appeals Committee, violated his constitutional and statutory rights to a fair impartial lawful and procedurally fair hearing; whether the 2 impugned suspension letters were illegal, for being ultra vires the Senate decision and without jurisdiction; whether the decision to change the period of suspension from 1 academic year to 2 academic years is irrational; whether the decision of the Vice Chancellor over the appeal was ultra vires the Universities Act; and whether the respondent had jurisdiction to suspend the ex parte applicant.
20. Regarding the statutes under which the ex parte applicant was tried, that is the Misconduct in Examination and Class Test Regulations, within the University Policies and Procedures Manual, were not valid, for they were not gazetted, contrary to sections 21, 23 and 35(1)(a)(ii) of the Universities Act, Cap 210, Laws of Kenya and Clause 38(4) of the Charter of the respondent. Universities Academic Staff Union (UASU), Moi University Chapter & 2 others vs. Moi University [2026] KEELRC 275 (KLR) and Kenei vs. Egerton University & another [2023] KEELRC 918 (KLR), are cited, where it had been held that university statutes are statutory instruments within the meaning of section 2 of the Statutory Instruments Act, Cap 2A, Laws of Kenya, for they are made in exercise of power conferred by an Act of Parliament, and they cannot acquire force of law until they are gazetted.
21. On the 3 tribunals being conducted in a manner that did not accord respect to the constitutional and statutory rights of the ex parte applicant, it is submitted that, contrary to the terms of Misconduct in Examinations and Class test Regulations, the ex parte applicant was not furnished with the copies of the information available to the committee ahead of the hearing, nor with an invitation to make or submit a statement in mitigation or explanation, including from witnesses, in addition to any other previously submitted, 7 days before the meeting. Articles 47 of the Constitution, section 4(3)(a)(b)(f)(g) and (4)(c) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, Geothermal Development Company Limited vs. Attorney General & 3 others [2013] eKLR and Ogina vs. Standard Chartered Bank (K) Limited [2026] KEELRC 625 (KLR).
22. There is also a submission around the composition of the tribunals that tried the ex parte applicant, that is the Students Affairs and Disciplinary Committee, the Senate and the Students Disciplinary Appeals Committee. It is stated that the Head of Lega, Ms. Irura, and the Deputy Vice Chancellor, Prof. Onywera, sat in all 3 tribunals. It is argued that that raised the possibility of bias towards their own causes, regarding their decisions. Ms. Irura sat as member and legal adviser to all 3 Tribunals, while Prof. Onywera sat as the Chair of 2 of the tribunals. Mwashori vs. Independent Electoral Commission of KCA University [2026] eKLR and Wanjigi vs. Chebukati [2022] eKLR are cited.
23. On the legality of the suspension letter, it is argued that the same was not aligned to the resolution of the Students Affairs and Disciplinary Committee, as adopted by the Senate. The 2 had resolved that the ex parte applicant be suspended for 1 academic year in the 2025/2026 academic year. When that resolution was communicated to the ex parte applicant, by the letter of 2nd December 2025, the Registrar indicated that the suspension ran from January to December 2026. Pastoli vs. Kabale District Local Government Council & others [2008] 2 EA 300, is cited about illegality, where the decision-making body commits an error of law in the process of taking the decision. It is submitted that the alteration of the decision of Senate was without jurisdiction, and was illegal.
24. Tied up with the above is the submission on alteration or change of the suspension from 1 academic year to 2 academic years. It is argued that the Student Affairs and Disciplinary Committee and the Senate suspended the ex parte applicant for 1 academic year, 2025/2026, running from September 2025 to April 2026, which meant that he would be eligible for graduation in 2026. It is submitted that the decision to change that meant that he would now be due to graduate in 2027. It is argued that, as the ex parte applicant was due to graduate in 2025, suspending his graduation to 2027, technically means suspension for 2 years. It is argued that that decision was irrational or unreasonable. Associated Provincial Picture Limited vs. Wensbury Corporation [1947] 2 All ER 680 [1948] 1 KB 223 and Republic vs. Commissioner of Cooperatives, ex parte Kirinyaga Tea Growers Cooperative Savings & Credit Society Limited [1999] 1 EA 245 are cited.
25. On the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, on the appeal being ultra vires the Universities Act, it is submitted that it was irrational for an inferior authority, that is the Vice Chancellor, who is a member of the Senate, to singularly sit on appeal against the decision of the Senate, for purposes of setting aside or otherwise approving its decision. It is argued that the Vice-Chancelor was inferior to the Senate, as he was its member, and the decision of the Senate could only be appealed at the Council of the respondent. It is argued that, based on section 35(1)(b) of the Universities Act, that the decision of the Student Affairs and Disciplinary Committee should be submitted to the Senate, not to the Vice-Chanceller, for review. Section 24(2) of the Statutory Instruments Act and 31(b) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, and Sum, Deputy Principal of Moi Girls School Nairobi vs. Njaggah, Principal of Moi Girls Nairobi & 2 others; Attorney General (Interested Party) [2024] KEELRC 324 (KLR) are cited.
26. On whether the respondent had jurisdiction to suspend the ex parte applicant, it is submitted that the ex parte applicant had already completed his studies, and, therefore, the respondent had no jurisdiction over him. It is argued that the provision that he was found liable under, Regulation 6.5.1(5), did not apply, as it related only to candidates, yet the applicant was not a candidate. It is submitted that the applicable provision was Regulation 6.5.1(16)(b).
27. On its part, the respondent flags 7 issues for determination, around whether the Academic Policies and Procedure Manual (2024) required gazettement for it to be valid and enforceable; whether the University Charter and statutes were invalid; whether the respondent acted ultra vires its mandate; whether the ex parte applicant was accorded a fair hearing, in accordance with the Constitution and applicable law; whether there existed bias, conflict of interest, or improper influence in the disciplinary process; whether the applicant has established duress or coercion, and whether the sanction imposed was unreasonable or disproportionate; and whether the threshold for grant of judicial review remedies has been met.
28. On whether the academic regulations required gazettement, it is submitted that there was a misapprehension of the statutory framework governing universities. It is argued that the Universities Act made a distinction, between statutes of a university and internal policies or regulations, and that, under section 34(1)(a) of the Universities Act, only statutes approved by a university council are for gazettement. It is submitted that the Universities Act gives universities autonomy to manage their internal academic affairs. It is stated that the Academic Policies and Procedure Manual (2024) fell in the category of internal administrative policies, to regulate student conduct, which did not require gazettement, as it did not amount to a university statute, within the Statutory Instruments Act. Republic of Kenya vs. University of Nairobi & 2 others ex parte Patrick Best Oyeso [2018] eKLR.
29. On the validity of the University Charter and the statutes, it is submitted that the respondent had processed its charter and statutes, and submitted them to the Cabinet Secretary, and the same received presidential assent. It is argued that it was the duty of the Cabinet Secretary to cause their gazettement, and not that of the respondent. It is submitted that that notwithstanding, the respondent remained accredited, by the Commission for Higher Education, which recognised its mandate, and that a finding, that its Charter and statutes were invalid, for lack of gazettement, would mean that it ought not graduate students and issue final certificates. It is further submitted that the assent by the President, to the Charter, remained valid, unless revoked under section 22 of the Universities Act.
30. On whether the respondent acted ultra vires, it is submitted that the ex parte applicant has not demonstrated that the respondent had acted outside of statutory or Charter based authority, and it is asserted that the acts of the respondent were grounded in law. It is argued that the Vice-Chancellor was the chief executive of the university, under section 39(2) of the Universities Act, with overall responsibility for administration and student discipline. That authority is further reinforced by the Charter of the respondent. It is further submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted pursuant to mandate, and implementation of the Senate decision fell within the administrative authority of the Vice-Chancellor. Republic vs. Senate Examinations Disciplinary Committee & another Ex parte Shadrack Mbau [2006] eKLR and Republic vs. Kenyatta University ex parte Njoroge Humphrey Mbuthi [2015] eKLR are cited.
31. On whether the ex parte applicant had been afforded a fair hearing, it is stated that Article 47 of the Constitution, which is operationalised by the Fair Administrative Action Act, requires decisions to be fair, reasonable and procedurally fair. It is argued that the ex parte applicant was notified of the allegations against him, invited to respond, heard by the disciplinary committee and accorded an opportunity to appeal. It is submitted that the procedural steps undertaken satisfied the requirements of fairness. The ex parte applicant attended all the sessions, at the primary hearing and on appeal, in the presence of his Advocate, where he admitted the charge and offered mitigation. Suchan Investment Limited vs. Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 3 others [2016] eKLR and Mwashori v Independent Electoral Commission of KCA University (IECK) & 8 others [2026] KEHC 697 (KLR) are cited, on the point that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, and not the correctness of the decision itself, and that fairness must be assessed contextually, taking into account the nature of the decision and the circumstances of each case.
32. On allegations of bias and conflict of interest, it is submitted that there was no evidence adduced on them. Pastoli vs. Kabale District Local Government Council & others [2008] 2 EA 300 is cited, for the argument that the test for bias would be whether there exists a real likelihood or reasonable apprehension of bias. It is submitted that the mere fact that certain members participated in multiple institutional processes did not establish bias. It is argued that the ex parte applicant did not demonstrate any personal interest, improper motive or pre-judgement on the part of the decision-makers. It is stated that the head of Legal Services only participated as an ex officio member, and played no deliberative or decision-making role.
33. On the allegation of duress or coercion, it is submitted that the same was not substantiated. PAO & others vs. Lau Yiu & another [1979] 3 All ER 65 is cited, for the argument that the legal standard for duress requires proof of coercion sufficient to vitiate consent, and that the factors to take into account would include whether the individual protested, whether alternatives were available, and whether steps were taken to repudiate the alleged acts of coercion. It is argued that the ex parte applicant participated in the proceedings, reiterated his position in the subsequent processes, but did not raise any complaint of coercion at any stage. It is further argued that the student or candidate, for whom the ex parte applicant sat the examination, appeared at the Committee and the appeals, and confessed to collusion with the ex parte applicant. On admissions, section 61 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80, Laws of Kenya, section 207(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75, Laws of Kenya, and Muchenga vs. Republic [2025] KEHC 7377 (KLR) are cited.
34. On the sanction being unreasonable or disproportionate, it is argued that impersonation was an academic offence which went to the core of academic integrity and institutional credibility. It is further submitted that that universities have a statutory and moral obligation to uphold academic standards, and disciplinary sanctions are necessary in that regard. Republic vs. Egerton University, ex parte Robert Kipkemboi Kosgei is cited. It is argued that the 1-year suspension was proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
35. On whether the threshold for grant of the orders sought was met, Municipal Council of Mombasa vs. Republic, Umoja Consultants Limited [2002] eKLR is cited, to point out that judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process, rather than with the merits of the decision. It is submitted that the ex parte applicant had not established the illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety of the decision. The court is cautioned against substituting the impugned decision with its own.
36. It is submitted, on certiorari, that the same would issue where there is exercise of excess jurisdiction or violation of rules of natural justice. It is stated that the respondent acted within its Charter, and gave the ex parte applicant a fair hearing, by presenting all the material against him, and ensured that he got all the opportunities to be heard. It is submitted that the ex parte applicant has not demonstrated, with precision, how his stated rights were violated.
37. On mandamus, it is submitted that that order is issued where a statute imposes a duty, but leaves discretion, on the mode of performing the duty, to those executing the duty. It cannot issue to command the performance of the duty in a specific way. It is asserted that it compels performance of a clear duty. On prohibition, it is submitted that the same would not be available where a decision has already been made, for it is intended to prevent the making of the decision. Dande & 3 others vs. Inspector General of Police, National Police Service & 5 others [2023] is cited, to make the point that it does not lie to correct the course, practice or procedure of the inferior tribunal, or a wrong decision on the merits of the proceedings, but for excess jurisdiction or absence of it and departure from rules of natural justice.
38. The remit of a court, exercising Judicial Review jurisdiction, has been discussed in a number of cases, among them Municipal Council of Mombasa vs. Republic, Umoja Consultants Limited [2002] eKLR, where the court discussed what ought to be considered when judicial review orders are sought. It should be about the process leading up to the making of the impugned decision. That would naturally raise the issue of jurisdiction, to make the decision, as the first criteria. The next would be issues around natural justice, whether the parties affected had been given an opportunity to be heard prior to the decision-making. The issue of what was considered, and an assessment of whether what was considered was relevant. It would not be a review of the merits of the decision, but of the process of decision-making. Pastoli vs. Kabale Local Government Council & others [2008] 2 EA 300 brought into the matrix consideration of issues around illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. These summarise jurisdiction, natural justice and fair administrative action.
39. These proceedings relate to a disciplinary process, that a student was taken through, with respect to misconduct during examinations. It did not relate to misconduct during examinations that he was required to sit, but rather examinations relating to a unit that he was not taking. Indeed, he had even completed his coursework and examinations, and he was not due to sit any examination. The allegation was that he sat an examination for another candidate or student. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, in which he participated, and a resolution was reached, that he would be suspended for a year. A challenge to that process, mounted here in court, by way of judicial review, cannot be on the merits of that decision, around whether the decision was exercised properly or whether the evidence was properly analysed or considered, but on the process leading to or around arriving at that decision. Going by Municipal Council of Mombasa vs. Republic, Umoja Consultants Limited [2002] eKLR, the court, seized of a judicial review application over it, would only consider it on the basis of jurisdiction, natural justice and fair administrative action.
40. The pleadings, in judicial review proceedings, take the form of the statutory statement. It is trite that parties are bound by their pleadings. Therefore, this determination shall be limited to what is pleaded in the statutory statement filed herein, as elaborated in the verifying affidavit, and other affidavits filed by the ex parte applicant and the respondent.
41. 4 orders are sought in the statutory statement, namely declaration, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. These proceedings are premised on the Common Law remedy of judicial review, rather than the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act. The Common Law Judicial Review is not as broad as that under the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act. At Common Law, there are only 3 judicial review remedies, being certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Declaration is, therefore, not a remedy under the Common Law Judicial Review. It would not be available for granting and consideration in this case. I will, therefore, only consider the 3 Common Law Judicial Review reliefs.
42. The 3 remedies are sought on the basis of the 2 letters, the one dated 2nd December 2025 and the other dated 20th January 2026, which suspended the ex parte applicant from the university. I am invited to quash the decision contained in those 2 letters. But, what exactly do the 2 letters say?
43. The letter dated 2nd December 2025 communicates a decision of the Senate of the respondent, made on 5th November 2025, which found the ex parte applicant guilty of violating the policy on Academic Misconduct in Examination or Class test Regulations, more specifically section 6.5(16), which provides that a student, found guilty of impersonation or attempted impersonation of a candidate, during an examination or coursework, was to be expelled. The verdict was that the ex parte applicant had been suspended from the respondent university for 1 academic year, running from January to December 2026, and his studentship was to resume in January 2027. It also gave him a right of appeal to the Vice-Chancellor, within 14 days.
44. The letter of 20th January 2026, on the other hand, communicates the outcome of the appeal, and it is to the effect that the appeal had been deliberated upon by the Student Disciplinary Appeals Committee, and that the decision of the Senate had been upheld, in terms of the finding of guilty and the suspension for 1 academic year, with a resumption date of January 2027.
45. The purport of the 2 letters is that the studentship of the ex parte applicant has been suspended for 1 academic year, running between January and December 2026, with a resumption date in January 2027. That is the decision that is under challenge in these proceedings.
46. The scope and extent of the grounds of the challenge are set out in Part D of the statutory statement, in paragraphs 18 through to 26. The challenge is founded on violation of principles of natural justice, ultra vires, irrelevant conside
[...truncated]