Victor Mwango, James Maina, Felix Mosicho, Zachary Babere, Haron Mutai, Patrick Kabui, Simeon Mwangi & Mercy Karim v Rongo University College Council, Rongo University College Academic Board, Rongo University College Disciplinary Committee & Principal Rongo University College [2014] KEHC 3094 (KLR)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT MIGORI

PETITION  NO. 3 OF 2014

BETWEEN

VICTOR MWANGO ..................................................................................1ST PETITIONER

JAMES MAINA ........................................................................................ 2ND PETITIONER

FELIX MOSICHO .................................................................................... 3RD PETITIONER

ZACHARY BABERE ................................................................................ 4TH PETITIONER

HARON MUTAI ....................................................................................... 5TH  PETITIONER

PATRICK KABUI ...................................................................................... 6TH PETITIONER

SIMEON MWANGI .................................................................................. 7TH  PETITIONER

MERCY KARIM ...................................................................................... 8TH  PETITIONER

AND

RONGO UNIVERSITY COLLEGE COUNCIL .................................... 1ST RESPONDENT

RONGO UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ACADEMIC BOARD ...................2ND RESPONDENT

RONGO UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE ...3RD RESPONDENT

PRINCIPAL RONGO UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ..................................4TH RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The petitioners in this matter are all students at Rongo University College (“the University”). They act in person and have moved the Court  by  way  of  the petition  dated 1st September 2014 in which they contest their suspension from the University  on  grounds  that  the  procedure used to discipline them violates Article 47(1) of the Constitution which protects  the  right  to  fair administrative process.

2. Together with  the  petition,  the  petitioners  filed  a  Notice of  Motion dated 1st  September 2014  in  which  they  asked for the  following orders:

THATthe service of this process be dispensed with and the same be heard ex-parte in the first instance.

THATa temporary  injunction  order be issued restraining  the  respondents  from  denying the  petitioners  the  opportunity  to  sit  for  the  ongoing  end  of  semester  examination, and other  services designed  to  be  offered  by  Respondents  to  the  petitioners  pending  the  final  determination  of  this  application.

THATa temporary injunction  order  be  issued  restraining  the  respondents  from  handling, the  disciplinary  issues  or  taking  any  action  against  the  petitioners  in  relation  to  the  matters  raised  in  this  application  until  the  final  determination  of  this  application.

THATa declaration  be  issued  by  this  honourable  Court  that  the  letters  of  suspension  dated  27th  August, 2014 issued  to  the  petitioners  arbitrarily infringed  and/or violated their constitutional  rights contrary to  the  provisions  of  articles 27,35,37,43,47 and 50 of  the  Constitution  of  Kenya.

THATan order  of  mandatory  injunction be  issued  directing  the  respondents  to  strictly  comply  with  constitutional  provisions  and  the  rules  of  natural  justice  in  undertaking  their  disciplinary authority  against  the  petitioners.

THATthe Petitioners be compensated.

3. It is worth noting that at this stage the Court is not called upon to fully determine the issues between the parties. It is to determine whether temporary relief ought  to  be  accorded  to  the  applicants  pending  hearing  of  the  petition. The Court need only be satisfied  that  there  is  an arguable  case  or  at  any  rate  the  petitioner’s case is not frivolous and that the  petitioners will not suffer irreparable damage.

4. It is not in disputed that the petitioners all received letters dated 27th August 2014 from the University Principal informing them that they had been suspended for 14 days effective 27th August 2014 pending the attendance of disciplinary proceedings before the University College Disciplinary Committee scheduled for 9th  September, 2014 at 10. 00 am at the University Boardroom. The petitioners have been accused of various infractions including participating in unlawful demonstrations, inciting students, assault causing bodily harm to a staff member, theft and related offences and damaging University  property.

5. In exercising the  power to  suspend the petitioners, the University draws authority from the Rules  and  Regulations  Governing the  Conduct and Discipline  of  Students (“the Regulations”) made in accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Universities Act, 2012and Rongo University  College Order.  Regulation 2. 1(b) of the Regulations provides that the Principal may “Suspend any student, suspected of committing an offence under these regulations, from the University College pending further disciplinary measures.”

6. In my view and prima facie, the University has the power to  suspend  a student  pending  disciplinary measures such  as  those contemplated  on  9th  September  2014. Whether  the  other regulations  are  violated or  implicated is as an arguable  issue  and  the same will be determined at  the full hearing.

7. The  next  issue  is  whether,  if the injunctions sought are not  granted  the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss. The petitioners contended that the  suspension came  just before  the  end  of  semester exams and since they will not sit for their examinations, they  are  likely  to miss  their new semester which will interfere with  the course of their studies.

8. On  the  other  hand  the  University contends that it  is  entitled  to carry  out  disciplinary proceedings and  if  the  students  are  not  implicated, it  will  organize special  examinations  for  them.

9. I take  the  position  that  the  University  is  a self-governing institution  and  our  Courts have held  in several cases  that  the  Courts  should  not unnecessarily interfere in the  internal  processes  of  independent institutions. This dictum is to be found in such cases as Nyongesa and 4 Others v Egerton University [1990] KLR 962where Nyarangi J.A. stated that, “Having stated thus, as I think to be desireable, the broad nature of the important issues and proposed procedure, I shall now state that courts are very loath to interfere with decisions of domestic bodies and tribunals including college bodies. Courts in Kenya have no desire to run Universities or indeed any other bodies.  However, courts will interfere to quash decisions of any bodies when the courts are moved to do where it is manifest that decisions have been made without fairly and justly hearing the person concerned or the other side.”

10. The petitioners have only been notified of the disciplinary action against them. In  the  result  I am  unable to  grant  prayers  2 and  3 of  the Notice of  Motion as  the  same  would  amount stopping the University  from exercising  disciplinary  authority over  its students. Prayers  4, 5 and  6  are  final  prayers  and can only be determined  at  the hearing of the petition.

11. I therefore  dismiss  the  Notice of  Motion  dated  1st September  2014 with no order as to costs.

DATED and DELIVERED at MIGORI this 3rd day of September 2014

D.S. MAJANJA

JUDGE

Petitioners in person.

Mr Oluoch instructed by Neto Otieno and Company Advocates for the respondents.