Paulpeter Makanda Makokha v University of Nairobi & another [2020] eKLR

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Constitutional and Human Rights Division
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
W. Korir
Judgment Date
October 29, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3

Case Brief: Paulpeter Makanda Makokha v University of Nairobi & another [2020] eKLR


1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Paulpeter Makanda Makokha v. University of Nairobi & Dr. Robinson Ocharo
- Case Number: Petition No. 106 of 2019
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Constitutional and Human Rights Division
- Date Delivered: October 29, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): W. Korir
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues before the court include whether the actions of Dr. Robinson Ocharo and the University of Nairobi violated the constitutional rights of the Petitioner, Paulpeter Makanda Makokha, particularly regarding his right to education, fair administrative action, and whether he is entitled to the reliefs sought, including compensation for damages due to these violations.

3. Facts of the Case:
Paulpeter Makanda Makokha, the Petitioner, was admitted to the University of Nairobi for a Master's degree in August 2009, starting coursework in January 2010. After completing his coursework, he was assigned Dr. Robinson Ocharo as his project supervisor in 2012. The Petitioner alleges that due to Dr. Ocharo's unavailability and lack of cooperation, he experienced significant delays, ultimately graduating in December 2016, four years beyond the expected two-year program duration. The Petitioner claims that these actions infringed upon his constitutional rights.

4. Procedural History:
The Petitioner filed a petition on February 13, 2019, seeking various declarations regarding the violation of his rights and compensation. The Respondents opposed the petition, asserting that the Petitioner did not exhaust alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The court noted that the issue of liability had already been determined by the Commission on Administrative Justice (the Ombudsman) in a prior inquiry, which found that Dr. Ocharo's conduct was unfair and unprofessional. The Ombudsman recommended remedial actions but did not recommend compensation.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered several constitutional provisions, including Articles 25, 28, 43(1)(f), and 47, which protect rights related to human dignity, the right to education, and fair administrative action.
- Case Law: The court referenced previous cases, including *Frankline Kithinji Muriithi v. Loyford Riungu Muriithi & 4 others* (2014), defining inhuman treatment, and *Gabriel Nyabola v. Attorney General & 2 others* (2014), which emphasized the state's obligation to fulfill the right to education. These cases supported the Petitioner's claims regarding the violation of his rights due to the delays caused by the Respondents.
- Application: The court found that the Respondents' actions resulted in a violation of the Petitioner's right to fair administrative action and education. The Petitioner demonstrated that he had a legitimate expectation to complete his degree within two years, and there was no evidence to suggest he contributed to the delays. The court also noted that the Ombudsman’s findings remained unchallenged and confirmed the unfair treatment experienced by the Petitioner.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, declaring that the actions of the Respondents violated his constitutional rights. The Petitioner was awarded KShs. 500,000 as general damages for the violations and costs of the proceedings against the Respondents.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the judgment, as the decision was made by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The case highlights the importance of timely academic supervision and the implications of administrative delays on students’ rights. The court's ruling reinforces the necessity for educational institutions to uphold constitutional rights and ensure accountability in the academic process. The awarded damages serve as a reminder of the legal recourse available to individuals facing injustices within educational settings. The decision emphasizes the need for universities to have adequate supervisory capacity and to address complaints from students promptly.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Paulpeter-Makanda-Makokha-v-University-of-Nairobi--another-[2020]-eKLR_2504_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries