Engineers Boards of Kenya v Wahome & others & 5 others (Civil Appeal 240 of 2013) [2015] KECA 1 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled the Engineers Board could examine university engineering programmes — not just degree certificates — before registering graduates as engineers.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Scope of the Board's power to 'recognize' degrees under the repealed Engineers Registration Act
The Board was empowered to go behind degree certificates and examine the engineering programmes of the awarding institutions; 'recognition' embraced professional accreditation.
The Board was established to regulate the activities and conduct of registered engineers, not to perform clerical registration. Section 11 required 'sufficient evidence of an adequate academic training in engineering', which a degree certificate alone could not furnish. Reading the Act holistically and against its object, the Board could demand evidence that training met the threshold depth and breadth of adequate engineering training, which is professional accreditation. Other professional boards such as the Council of Legal Education operate at this same non-governmental accreditation level.
Whether the Board was justified in finding the Egerton and Masinde Muliro programmes deficient
Yes; on the record the programmes lacked qualified staff and proper infrastructure, and the universities failed to take remedial action taken by other universities.
The Board wrote to both universities pointing out specific deficiencies: unqualified staff (including a home science graduate teaching public health engineering and a geologist teaching geotechnical engineering at Masinde Muliro) and inadequate infrastructure. Other universities such as Moi and JKUAT addressed the shortcomings by recalling graduates for gap coverage, but Egerton and Masinde Muliro did not. The respondents were aware of the concerns through public advertisements and Senate minutes yet ignored them, so they could not blame the Board.
Whether the refusal to register the respondents violated their constitutional rights under Articles 27, 28, 47 and 55
No violation; the Board's requirements were applied across the board to all universities and did not amount to discrimination, denial of fair administrative action, or denial of access to education and employment.
Article 55 does not preclude the demand of requisite academic standards in the education and training of youth. The Board did not refuse registration outright; it required sufficient evidence of adequate training, a demand made uniformly of all universities. With no violation of any constitutional right established, the respondents were entitled to no damages, special or general, from the Board.
Legal principles established
#- In interpreting the repealed Engineers Registration Act, the term 'recognize' in Section 11(1) embraced accreditation, empowering the Board to examine the adequacy of academic training rather than merely verifying degree certificates.
- An Act of Parliament must be read holistically; no provision stands alone.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant against Egerton and Masinde Muliro universities
- 2.Other respondents to bear their own costs
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Petition Nos. 149 and 207 of 2011 (consolidated)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over the High Court judgment in the consolidated constitutional petitions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Engineers Boards of Kenya v Wahome & others & 5 others (Civil Appeal 240 of 2013) [2015] KECA 1 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Court of Appeal Appeal arising from Petition Nos. 149 and 207 of 2011 (High Court at Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/1/eng@2015-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.