Republic v Commission for University Education &Cabinet; Secretary, Ministry of Education Science and Technology ex-parte Genco University [2017] KEHC 2767 (KLR) | Judicial Review Timelines | Esheria

Republic v Commission for University Education &Cabinet; Secretary, Ministry of Education Science and Technology ex-parte Genco University [2017] KEHC 2767 (KLR)

Full Case Text

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  176 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF UNIVERSITIES ACT NO.  42 OF 2012 AND THE REGULATIONS THERE UNDER

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION ACT

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

AND

IN THE MATTER OF TRIBUNAL, ILLEGAL, UNREASONABLE CONDUCT OF COMMISSION OF UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF GENCO UNIVERSITY.

BETWEEN

REPUBLIC ex-parte GENCO UNIVERSITY …………………….....APPLICANT

VERSUS

COMMISSION FOR UNIVERSITY EDUCATION …….……1ST RESPONDENT

CABINET SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY…………….……………….2ND RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The applicant in this Judicial Review matter is GENCO University, a private University  duly registered  and  authorized   to offer  quality  degrees  in Kenya   with the  letter of  Interim Authority ( LIA) dated  17th June  2011.

2. The 1st respondent Commission for University Education is a duly incorporated body  established pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of the Universities Act, 2012.

3. The 2nd respondent is the Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Education Science and Technology with Authority  under the Universities Act, 2012.

4. Vide  a notice of motion dated  26th  April  2016  and  filed in court  on  9th May  2016, pursuant  to the leave to apply granted on 19th April  2016, the exparte  applicant   seeks from  this court the following  orders:

1. This Honourable  court be pleased  to issue  an order  of certiorari calling  into the High  Court  and  quashing  the  letter  and the decision  of the  Commission  for University  Education ( the 1st  respondent) contained  in the said  letter dated  18th March  2016 purporting  to revoke  and  or commencing  the process of  the revocation of letters  of  Interim Authority of Genco University dated 17th June 2011 under  number  ACC/CHE3/000162.

2. An  order of certiorari  do issue  calling into  the  High Court  and  quashing  the letters, recommendation, decision and the concurrence  made to  revoke the applicant’s  letter of  Interim Authority dated 17th June 2011 under number  ACC/CHE2/000162, for  the alleged  lapse of  time  by the respondents that  was contained  in the letters dated  23rd  October  2015 and   16th  February 2016.

3. This Honourable court be pleased to issue an order of  prohibition directed  at the respondents prohibiting  them  and/or their servants or agents from revoking the applicants’ letter of  Interim Authority;

4. An order  of  prohibition  be issued  directed at  the  respondents  prohibiting them, and/or their servants or agents from commencing, continuing, or implementing any of the  recommendations, decisions or concurrence of the said  letters to  revoke the  applicant’s  letter of  Interim  Authority.

5. This  Honourable  Court be  pleased  to issue  an order of  prohibition, directed to  the  respondents, prohibiting   them and  or their  servants  or agents  from and or  in any way  publishing, gazetting or in any way circulating any information or notice  concerning  or purporting  to revoke  or commence the revocation process of the applicant’s  letter of Interim Authority.

6. An order of Mandamus do issue directed at the respondents requiring them, compelling and or directing them to exercise their powers under the Universities Act with impartiality and   fairness.

7. This  Honourable  court be pleased  to issue declaration that the respondents  acted in  breach of  natural  justice  and their duty  under the Universities Act in that, in making the recommendations and  decision  to revoke  the applicant’s  letter of Interim Integrity they failed  and/or  neglected to give notice, and to afford  a  fair hearing, and  opportunity to the applicant.

8. The  Honorable  court  be  pleased to issue a  declaration that  the recommendation  and decision  contained   in the letters  dated  23rd October  2015  and 16th February  2016  as made  are void, illegal, invalid, and devoid of any legal  consequences.

9. That  this Honourable court be  pleased  to issue declaration  that the acts, recommendation and decision of the respondents were made in bad faith, unjustly and  arbitrarily  as the prescribed  period  pertaining  to the letter of Interim Authority  had not  lapsed  and the applicant  had not  violated  Section 7(1) of the Act.

10. The costs of this application.

5. The notice of motion was premised on the statutory statement of facts dated 18th April 2016, the verifying affidavit  both accompanying Chamber Summons for leave and a supporting affidavit sworn by S.M. Mungai and on other grounds on the face of the notice of motion.

6. The application was vigorously opposed by  the respondents  who filed  replying affidavits sworn by James Kiburi, the Acting Director  for University  Education  on  2nd September  2016 and the 1st respondent’s  replying affidavit sworn on  22nd  June  2017  by Professor  David Some, the Commission’s Secretary/ Chief  Executive  Officer.

7. On 2nd March 2017 the exparte applicant also filed a further affidavit sworn on  21st  December  2016 by Mr S.M. Mungai, its Registrar.

8. All parties  advocates  filed  written  submissions  which they  also orally  highlighted  on 8th March  2017.  They also send soft copies of their said submissions.  Relevant authorities were filed and relied on.

9. As  I retired  to consider the  parties’  respective positions  as  ably argued by their respective counsels,  I undertook an  exploration of the court  file and  record of  proceedings, this  matter having  been commenced  before Honourable Korir J and having been  handled by  Odunga J before directing that the file be placed before me for consideration.

10. Of great interest in Judicial Review matters is time stipulated in the Law Reform Act, the   Civil Procedure Rules (Order 53) and any other parent Act relevant to the matters under consideration.

11. In this matter, the respondents have raised  the  issue of   the application being statute  barred  and that it  was  filed beyond  the 6 months  period  for certiorari, from  the time  when the letter of Interim Authority [LIA]expired.  However, my perusal of the pleadings  show that  what is  being challenged  is the  letters dated  18th March  2016; 23rd  October  2015  and  16th February 2016.  As the application  for leave  was filed on  18th April 2016, it follows that any decision made within 6 months  between  18th April  2016  and  18th October  2015   could validly  be challenged by way of certiorari.

12. However, any order, or decision  made before 18th October  2015 could not  be challenged by  way of certiorari  as stipulated  in Order  53  Rule  2  of  the Civil Procedure Rules and section 9 of the Law Reform Act.

13. In the instant  case,  the substantive motion does not challenge  the decisions  made prior  to 18th October  2015   and therefore  the argument   by the 1st  respondent  that these proceedings are statute barred does not  hold  any substance.  The same is therefore overruled, as far as the filing of the application for leave to commence these Judicial Review proceedings was concerned.

14. That notwithstanding, the order  for leave to  institute  these  Judicial Review  proceedings  was issued  on 19th April  2016  by Honourable  Justice  Weldon  Korir.  In the  said order, the  learned judge  at page 4 of the hand written  proceedings  directed  the  exparte  applicant   to also file and  serve   the  substantive notice  of motion, skeletal submissions and  list of  authorities  within 15 days  from today’s date.  That date was 19th April 2016.

15. The learned Judge also listed the matter for mention on 5th May 2016   to confirm compliance and for issuance for further directions.

16. However, the  file  was  recalled  on 28th April  2016  and  rescheduled for  10th May  2016  as the learned Judge was to be  away  on 5th May 2016.

17. On 10th May 2016   when the matter  came up for mention before the Honourable  Korir J, the exparte  applicant’s  counsel Mr  Mwangi  informed the court that  he had complied  with the court’s  directions.  He then added    “We however filed our papers out of time.  I apologize to the court and respondents.”

18. The court then proceeded to  issue directions  regarding the filing of responses by the respondents who were also represented  in  court and  granted leave to  the applicant  to file  further  affidavits and  supplementary  affidavits if need be  by either the applicant or the respondents and the matter  was rescheduled  for highlighting  on 9th June  2016.

19. By 9th June  2016  the learned judge Korir J  had been transferred  to Busia High Court  hence, Honourable  Odunga J took over the conduct  of the matter and directed  on  9th June   2016  that the  file be  placed before  me for highlighting  of submissions by the parties. The matter was finally heard by way of oral highlights of the filed submissions on 8th March 2017.

20. As I retired to consider  the merits  of this matter, my  attention   was drawn  to the  proceedings and orders of Honorable  Korir J  made on  19th April  2016  granting  leave to  the exparte applicant to  file the  substantive  notice of  motion within  15 days  of the date of leave.

21. Fifteen days elapsed on 4th May, 2016   which was the last day.  It was a Wednesday.  Examining  the  notice of motion   dated 26th  April  2016, it  was  stamped  in court with  a  received date  stamp for 28th April  2016   after court  fees assessment  was  done,  requiring payment of  shs  36,675.

22. However, the official court filing fees receipt No. 6570248 for kshs   36,675 shows that the fees was paid and receipt issued on 9th May 2016.

23. Court  documents  which require  payment  of court fees  are deemed filed in court on the day when  court fees is paid  and acknowledged  by way of an official  court  receipt   and not  on the date of assessment  of  court fees.

24. In the instant case, the court received stamp on the substantive notice of motion is for 28th April 2016   whereas court fees  was paid on 9th May 2016.  The exparte  applicant’s  counsel  Mr Mwangi did acknowledge  in court on  10th May  2016  before Honourable Korir  J that  he had  filed his client’s motion out of time.  He then proceeded to apologize to the court and to the respondents. He did not seek  the court’s  leave  to enlarge  the  period within  which the substantive  notice  of motion ought to  have been  filed.

25.  On the other hand, the court proceeded to give directions on the conduct of the matter oblivious of the apology.  An apology to court does not invoke an order of the court. No prayer for enlargement of time   or validation of the filed motion was made and no order was made regarding the filing of the substantive notice of motion out of time.

26. It is not in doubt  that the  15th day lapsed  on 4th May  2016  and  not  9th May  2016, the latter  being the  20th day of the order   for leave  granted  on 19th April  2016.

27. The question for determination is therefore whether this court is seized of any competent application for determination on its merits.

28. From  the onset, the motion   was filed  outside  the  15 days  granted  by Honourable  Korir  J on  19th April 2016.

29.  Order  53   Rules  (1)  (1)  and  (3)  of the Civil  Procedure Rules  stipulate  that no application for an order  of mandamus, prohibition  or certiorari shall be  made  unless  leave therefore  had been  granted in accordance  with the rule.  Under Rule (2), the leave once  granted to  apply for  the  Judicial Review  orders  of certiorari, prohibition  or mandamus, the substantive  motion shall  be filed  within 21   days  of the date  of leave.

30. Nonetheless, the court ( Korir J)  having granted  leave and  a  shorter period  than the 21  days for the filing of the substantive notice of motion, it  was obligatory  for the exparte  applicant  to file the  substantive  notice of  motion  within the time  frame stipulated in the court order, and if such   time  was  considered  to be insufficient, the applicant   was at  liberty  to seek leave of court for enlargement  thereof.

31. The notice of motion  having been  filed out of time  without leave  of court   it is my  humble view that the leave granted  on 19th April  2016   elapsed on 4th May  2016  and  therefore  the motion as filed on 9th May 2016 is  incompetent  before this court.  The Court of Appeal  had occasion  to consider  a similar issue in United  Housing  Estate  Limited  v Nyali ( Kenya) Limited  CA  No.  Nairobi 84/1996 and pronounced itself as follows:-

“ A party  who obtains  an order  of the court  on certain specified  conditions can only continue  enjoying   the  benefits  of that order  if the  condition attaching  to it are  scrupulously  honoured  and in the  event  of a proved  failure to  comply  with  the   attached condition, the court   has inherent  power  to recall  or vacate  such  an order.”

32. Earlier  on in Wilson  Osolo vs  John Ojiambo Ochola  & Another  CA  of  1995, the same  Court  of Appeal, while  appreciating  that Section  9(3)  of the Law Reform Act, Cap  26  Laws  of  Kenya  clearly stipulates  that an application for leave to apply for  an order of  certiorari could not  be made  six months  after the  date of the  order or  decision to be quashed  and that as there is no provision for extending the time prescribed  there under, the court was  nevertheless of the view  that:

“It is  was  a mandatory  requirement  of Order  53  Rule  3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules  then and it  is now  again so that  the notice  of motion  must be filed  within 21  days  of grant  of such  leave.  No such  notice  of motion having apparently been filed  within 21  days of  15th February  1982, there  was  no proper application  before the superior court.  This period of 21 days could have been extended by a reasonable period had there   been an application under Order 49 of the Civil Procedure Rules.  There was no such application save the one dated 28th April 1994.  That came  too late  in the day  in any event  and  the learned judge  erred in  even considering  the  extension  of time  some  12 years  after the event.”

33. In the recent  past, this court  has followed the above  Court of Appeal decisions  in JR  130/2016  Edna  Mwende  Kavindu v The Kenya Medical Laboratories Technicians and  Technologists  Board; JR  97/2016  Linda Okello v Inspector  General of  police  of the National Police Service and  Other; and  JR  437 of  2016  Black Trap Products  Ltd vs  The Chief Land Registrar and the Chairman National  Land Commission.

34. In the above  cases, the  exparte  applicants  after obtaining  leave to lodge  Judicial Review  proceedings  went to slumber  and  filed their respective notices of motion out of the stipulated time period given by the court.

35. The court proceeded to strike out the notices of motion for being a nullity ab initio.

36. In other words, this court is of the humble view  that a party  who obtains  an order of the  court  cannot unilaterally  choose  not to  abide  by the conditions  attached  to the exercise  of the  court’s  discretion on the ground  that he or she  ought to  access  justice.

37. The law under Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rule allows enlargement of the period initially granted by the court.  The applicant had the opportunity to seek for such enlargement of time and the court could have considered that plea whether made orally or in writing.  No such plea   was made.  Instead, counsel for the exparte applicant “apologized” to the court and to the respondents for filing his client’s papers out of time.

38. In my humble view, an apology to the court would not be sufficient.  It would  only suffice if it  was  accompanying  a prayer for  enlargement  of time and so the  court would, in  its determination  consider  whether  the  delay  was justified bearing in mind the apology given.

39. The court’s discretion to enlarge time cannot be exercised suo motu or on the basis of an apology without an application for enlargement of the lapsed period.

40. In John Ongeri Mariaria & 2 Others vs Paul Mutundura Capp.  No.  Nairobi 301/2003 [2004] 2 EA 163, the Court of Appeal observed quite authoritatively that:

“Legal business can no longer be handled in such sloppy and careless manner.  Some clients  must learn at their costs  that the  consequences of careless  and  leisurely  approach  to work…..must  fall on their shoulders ….whereas  it is true  that the court  has unfettered  discretion, like all judicial discretions, must  be exercised  upon reason  not  capriciously or sympathy alone……justice  must look both ways   as the rules of  procedure   are meant  to regulate   administration of justice  and they are not  meant to  assist  the  indolent.”

41. In the instant case, this court finds  and  holds that  failure to  comply  with the court’s  stipulation that the substantive  notice of  motion be  filed within 15  days is not a procedural technicality  curable by application of  Article  159(2) (c ) of the Constitution especially  where there is no application for enlargement   of the said  stipulated  period.

42. And as was aptly pointed out by Odunga J in Republic vs Cabinet Secretary, information, Communication and Technology and Another exparte Celestine Okuta & Others [2016] e KLR:

“ In my  view, court  orders  are serious  decisions that  can only be  exercised  based on material  placed before  the court  and cannot be ignored on the ground that they are  technicalities.  In my  view, the law  is that  technicalities  of procedure  ought not  to automatically  lead to  termination of proceedings  and that the court  must have  the power to save  the same where  material  exist before the court  to justify non-compliance.  However, where there  is none, and  where infact  the  applicant  adopts   an incorrect  position  of the law to  justify  his inaction, such  discretion cannot be  exercised.”

43. I reiterate that the exparte applicant did not seek the courts’ indulgence to enlarge time for the filing of the substantive motion despite acknowledging on his first appearance after the filing that he had filed the same out of time. For the foregoing  reasons, I find and hold that the notice of motion dated  26th April  2016  and  filed in court on 9th May 2016   outside the  15 days  granted  by Honourable Korir J  on 19th April  2016  is fatally  incompetent  and  therefore  I shall  not  waste  very  precious judicial time  and  resources to delve into  the  merits  of the  substantive motion.

44.  I hereby proceed and strike out the   said notice of motion. As the respondents proceeded to urge  their respective  positions  in this matter  as if the  motion  was  competently  filed without   raising  this important  issue which  goes to the  root of the motion,  and as the court was obliged to determine this issue because it is deemed to know the law, I shall  not award  the respondents any costs  of the incompetent motion.

45. The motion is accordingly struck out with each party to bear their own costs of these proceedings.

Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 9th day of October, 2017.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE