Onjira John Anyul v University of Nairobi
The bottom line
#Institutions must follow strict constitutional rules when disciplining individuals; unfair processes lead to decisions that are legally void.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the disciplinary proceedings violated the right to fair administrative action under Article 47
The proceedings were a sham and bereft of proof; neither the alleged assailant nor the victim testified, denying the petitioner the chance to cross-examine his accusers, so Article 47 was violated.
The court perused the Disciplinary Committee minutes and found that although the petitioner was accused of soliciting and inciting Humphrey Ouko to attack Bramwel Kundu, neither the solicited student nor the injured student was called as a witness. Relying on Odunga J in Republic v Kenyatta University Exparte Njoroge Humphrey Mbuthi, the court held that adverse evidence requires an opportunity to cross-examine. The only respondent witness was a non-eyewitness security officer whose evidence was inadmissible hearsay. The allegations were criminal in nature, demanding proof to criminal standards.
Whether the petitioner's right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) was violated
Article 50(1) applied because the proceedings were quasi-criminal in nature; the hearing was unfair and amounted to 'Kangaroo court' proceedings.
The court found the disciplinary proceedings were quasi-criminal and quasi-judicial, requiring adherence to basic fair-hearing principles. The petitioner was called to present his defence before the complainant, senior security officer Dismus Aminga, gave evidence, contrary to known procedure. The hearing was founded on charges with no accuser or witnesses, had a pre-determined outcome, and literally ended the petitioner's medical career. The subsequent substitution of expulsion with a three-year suspension on appeal could not cure the unfairness.
Whether the petitioner was subjected to discriminatory treatment under Article 27
The right to equality and freedom from discrimination was violated because Humphrey Ouko, the main actor in the fight, faced no disciplinary action and graduated while the petitioner was expelled/suspended.
It was not disputed that no disciplinary action was taken against Humphrey Ouko, who continued his studies and graduated on 2nd September 2016. The court found this lent credence to the claim that the proceedings were discriminatory, as the main actor in the fight went scot free while the petitioner, whose only act was addressing a campaign rally that turned chaotic, was held responsible for the attendees' behaviour.
Whether compensation in damages was payable
The petitioner was entitled to compensation of Kshs 1,000,000/- for the suffering and anxiety caused by the unconstitutional disciplinary process.
The petitioner had been out of college since his suspension while his peers proceeded with their studies, facing an uncertain future due to a disciplinary process that failed the constitutional validity test. Although the parties made no submissions on quantum, the court considered Kshs 1,000,000/- adequate compensation for the violation of his rights.
Legal principles established
#- Where adverse evidence is relied on in disciplinary proceedings, the affected person must be afforded an opportunity to face and cross-examine his accusers; failure to call the key witnesses renders the proceedings unfair under Article 47.
- Courts will not ordinarily interfere with decisions of domestic or college disciplinary bodies unless a breach of statute or the rules of natural justice is shown.
- A candidate cannot be held vicariously liable for violence by supporters at a campaign rally absent cogent proof of incitement.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the expulsion and subsequent suspension of the petitioner from the respondent university was null and void ab initio and that the petitioner be readmitted to join the respondent university's Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (MBch.B) from where he had reached before his said suspension so as to complete his studies
- 2.A declaration that the petitioner's rights under Articles 27, 47 and 50 of the Constitution were violated
- 3.An award of Kshs 1,000,000/- to the petitioner for violation of his rights
- 4.Costs of the petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 23(1) of the Constitution read with Article 165 (jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for redress of denial, violation or infringement of rights in the Bill of Rights)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onjira John Anyul v University of Nairobi", Case Analysis (2019). Petition (filed 1st September 2017). Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.