Republic v Kenyatta University, Students Disciplinary Committee - Kenyatta University & Senate-Kenyatta University Ex-Parte Gatetua Macharia Kennedy [2017] KEHC 4350 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  618 OF 2016

IN THE MATER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS

REPUBLIC.................................................................................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

KENYATTA UNIVERSITY..............................................................................1ST RESPONDENT

STUDENTS  DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE KENYATTA UNIVERSITY....2ND RESPONDENT

SENATE-KENYATTA UNIVERSITY.............................................................3RD RESPONDENT

GATETUA MACHARIA  KENNEDY.......................................................EXPARTE APPLICANT

RULING ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

1. This ruling determines the respondent’s preliminary objection dated 28thFebruary 2017 to the exparte applicant’s notice of motion dated 30th January 2017.

2. The preliminary objection asserts that the proceedings herein  are fatally  defective, incurably  incompetent, have no  basis  in law and  should be  struck out  with costs  on the grounds that: These proceedings have been instituted in a separate cause although the exparte applicant complains that the judgment in Nairobi Miscellaneous Application No.  264/13 was not adhered to; The proper cause within which to ventilate that issue any claim for failure to be afforded fair administrative action connected thereto is Nairobi Miscellaneous Application No.  264/2013.

3. The parties  agreed to  canvass  the  preliminary  objection first before considering the merits of the  judicial  Review proceedings herein wherein leave to commence the substantive motion  was granted on 18th January  2017  without objection from the respondent during the interpartes  hearing of  the chamber summons  for  leave.

4. According to  the  respondents, as  per their submissions  filed on 6th  March  2017, the  proceedings hereto were necessitated by  the University’s  failure  to comply  with the  judgment  of the court in Nairobi Miscellaneous  Application No. 264  of 2013 Republic  vs  Kenyatta  University  and  2 Others  exparte  Gatetua  Macharia  Kennedy. That in conducting disciplinary proceedings subsequent to that judgment, the University blantantly disregarded the court’s direction in several respects which he had enumerated.

5. It is therefore contended that the applicant should not have instituted a separate  cause.  Reliance was placed on Eliud Nyauma Onwoyo vs  Kenyatta University & Others [2016] eKLROnguto  J wherein the  applicants after obtaining  Judicial Review  orders  and the university  being ordered  to conduct fresh disciplinary  proceedings  in compliance  with the law; on  being dissatisfied  with the  results, one  of the students  returned  to court through  a separate constitutional  petition complaining  that  subsequent  proceedings  did not comply with the  directions  of the judgment  of Lenaola  J in  various  respects.

6. It  was  submitted that  in dismissing  the petition  in its  entirety, Onguto J held  that the right forum to  file the suit was the one  within which  the orders  emanated  and that non  compliance  with the  orders of  the  court by failing to afford the applicant fair administrative  action too ought to form or constitute a ground for contempt  of court application.

7. This court was urged to uphold  the preliminary  objection  as  hearing  this case  will place the court  in the same  position as that of the former suit( case)  hence going  through  a  repeat of the  same  trial process  and  if vindicated, the applicant  would end  up with  much the same  orders as held by Onguto J.

8. Further, it was contended that the applicant   has made the same argument that he made in the earlier case.  The rest of the submissions by the respondents go into the merits of the notice of motion.

9. In opposition  to the respondent’s  preliminary  objection dated   25th February  2017, the   exparte  applicant  filed  written  submissions  dated  14th March  2017 contending that the  preliminary  objection   as raised   has the  effect  of denying   a party  a right of  audience on the merits  of a case hence  the preliminary objection  does not fall within the purview of the celebrated case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Company Ltd vs West End  Distributors [1969] EA  696.

10. According to the exparte  applicant, the  subsequent  disciplinary proceedings after Honourable Korir J quashed  the earlier  proceedings  gave  rise to  a  totally  new decision and that  the mere  fact of  there  being alternative  remedies  does not    bar   one to  seek Judicial Review  reliefs.  Reliance   was placed d on Republic  vs  The Commissioner of Lands exparte Lake Flowers Ltd HCC Application  1235  of  1998  adopted  in  Republic  vs  CM’s Court Milimani Commercial  Courts  & 5  others [2014] e KLR.

11. It  was  also submitted  that  by necessary  implication, the  preliminary objection claims that these Judicial Review  proceedings  are Resjudicata HCC JR  264/2013.  it  was therefore submitted that based  on the decision  in Republic  vs Judicial  Service Commission Exparte Pareno [2004] eKLR, resjudicata has no place in Judicial Review   proceedings  and that  in any event, these  proceedings  are not  a repeat  of the petition No. 264/2013 and that  even though, the court will have the benefit  of examining  the evidence and satisfying itself  as to whether  there  was breach of procedure or the matter should be considered as contempt.

12. That this court cannot be   invited to  probe  contempt  after  certiorari has been  issued with  no express  orders  of mandamus  having been  violated.  That  in this case, the respondents adhered  to the court’s ruling  by holding fresh  disciplinary  proceedings but that  the  procedure adopted  in the said  later disciplinary proceedings is what the exparte  applicant  seeks  to challenge hence the  preliminary objection should be  dismissed  for  want  of merit.

13. Further, that this case can  be distinguished  from Eliud  Omwoyo  case  in that in that case, the  petitioner  sought  a declaration  that the respondent was in contempt  of court  orders unlike  in this case  which is not  a contempt   proceeding hence there is no basis of a preliminary  objection.

14. In addition, that  whereas  the  failure  of the respondents  to adhere to the court’s  ruling partly  informs  the  current  motion, the exparte   applicant  seeks  orders of certiorari against the  decisions  of the respondents and  orders of  mandamus which was not the case in the Eliud Omwoyo decision which is clearly distinguishable  from this case.

15. The applicant urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection.

DETERMINATION.

16. I have considered the preliminary objection, submissions by parties’ advocates and the authorities relied on.  The main issue for determination it whether the preliminary objection raised should be upheld.

17. Basically, the preliminary objection was by implication, though not expressly stated by the respondents based on the doctrine or resjudicata which, according to the exparte applicant, has no place in Judicial Review proceedings.  The   exparte  applicant  also contends  that the preliminary  objection  as  argued  does not  meet the  test laid down in the Mukisa Biscuit  Manufacturing  Company Ltd vs  West End  Distributors  Ltd  [1969] EA  696.

18. The question   is, what  is a preliminary  objection and  whether the preliminary objection  raised herein  qualifies  as  one.  In the Mukisa Biscuits (supra) case, Sir Charles Newbold   observed that:

“Apreliminary objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurer.  It  raises   a pure point of law which is  argued  on the assumption  that all  the facts  pleaded by  the other  side are  correct.  It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.  The improper raising of point of law by way of preliminary objection does nothing but unnecessary increase costs and, on occasion, confuse the issue.  This improper practice should stop.”

19. In addition, a preliminary  objection  being  a pure  point of law   should not  raise  factual matters which require probing  and  interrogation by way of affidavit    evidence to  ascertain the truth thereof.  Where facts require ascertainment, by adduction of evidence then it is appropriate to raise a preliminary objection by way of a notice of motion or while urging the main cause and not by  way of arguments from the bar.

20. In the instant  case,  there are  allegations that the  applicant  is complaining against the respondent’s failure to adhere to the judgment of  Korir J  in Petition  264/2013 which was determined and that  therefore  he should have filed a  motion in the said  petition, seeking to cite the respondents  for contempt  of court  and  not to  institute  fresh proceedings.

21. On the other hand, the  applicant  avers  that the judgment  of Korir J  was adhered to  by the respondent  reconstituting fresh disciplinary  proceedings  against the  applicant   but that  in the process, failed to adhere  to the  Rules of  natural justice.

22. Moreso, that as no order of mandamus was issued, the applicant is right in seeking for certiorari  and  mandamus to quash the fresh disciplinary proceedings and  decision of  26th March  2015   and  of appeal of   5th October  2016 and  to compel the respondents to clear him for graduation and issue him with his degree certificate.  While  urging  the preliminary objection, the respondent’s counsel  also  delved  into the merits  of the  substantive motion  which, in my view, diluted  the preliminary  objection as evidence   was being  adduced in the  wrong forum.

23. Although the  question of whether or not  the  plea  of  resjudicata  can be  raised in Judicial Review  proceedings  is an arguable  one, and has been subject of many judicial decisions by this court, I nonetheless would not  at this stage determine that issue conclusively as the respondents did not exhaustively  argue that  point of  Resjudicata  for  my determination.

24. In my humble  view, all the  issues  raised by  the respondents  and  responded   to by the  applicant’s  counsel can  adequately be dealt  with at  the hearing  of the main motion so that the applicant  is accorded  a hearing to ventilate his grievances against the respondents and the respondents be given ample opportunity to attack the  merits of the motion which, on  the face of it,  this court cannot determine, without hearing  the parties, that it is  frivolous.

25. For those reasons, I find that  the  preliminary  objection  raised  is not a  pure point of law for disposal as it raised factual matters requiring  probing  and  interrogation.

26. Accordingly, the preliminary objection is dismissed with costs in the cause.

The parties to fix a hearing date for the main motion.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 31st day of May 2017.

R. E. ABURILI

JUDGE