The Senate, Pan Africa Christian University: Waciira Mahihu Muya - VS-& Others

The Senate, Pan Africa Christian University & Others
Waciira Mahihu Muya –vs-

REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 10, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37,
46, 47, 48, 50, 55, 165 AND 258 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
KENYA (2010)
-AND-
IN THE MATTER OF: ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND

FREEDOMS, THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE,
TRANSPARENCY AND FAIR HEARING.
-AND-
IN THE MATTER OF: LIMITATION OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION AND TRAINING;

INFORMATION; AND FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
-AND-
IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONTRAVENTION AND OR THREATENED

CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND
FREEDOMS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA.
-AND-
IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS
AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
RULES, 2013
-BETWEEN-
WACIIRA MAHIHU MUYA..…………………..............................................PETITIONER
-AND-
THE SENATE, PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY………………..….1ST RESPONDENT

PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY..…...………………................. 2ND RESPONDENT
DR. JOSH T. AMWAGO……………………………….…………….…….3RD RESPONDENT
CERTIFICATE OF URGENCY
I, SHISANYA A. EDWIN, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya practicing in the
name and style of M/S Shisanya & Company Advocates, do hereby certify this
Application as EXTREMELY URGENT and deserving to be placed before the
Honourable Judge and heard on priority basis for the reasons;
Waciira Mahihu Muya –vs- The Senate, Pan Africa Christian University & Others
1. THAT this Petition and Application is of utmost urgency, as it relates to the rights of
a University Student which are continuously being abused by the Respondents in
their respective individual and collective capacities.
2. THAT the Petitioner, a male adult aged 27 years is a duly registered University
Student undertaking his Master’s Degree studies in the field of Marriage and Family
Therapy, Specializing in Children and adolescents therapy, has been suspended for
a full academic year from the 2nd Respondent effective 25th June, 2021 without any
justifiable cause or reason.
3. THAT the 3rd Respondent assaulted the Petitioner (in the school Chapel on 18th May
2021) whose only offense was seeking information and proceeded to formulate
trumped-up allegations/charges on the conduct of the Petitioner and the
Respondents thereafter subjected the said Petitioner to an unfair administrative
action whereby his primary accusers were the same persons who constituted the
Disciplinary Committee which ultimately sat and suspended the Petitioner with the
approval of the 1st Respondent. This is in absolute contravention of the legal
principle of nemo judex in causa sua.
4. THAT there exists the 2nd Respondent’s Students Hand Book which under Section 7
(4) (C) provides for an avenue of appeal against the decisions of the 1st Respondent.
The said appeal should be lodged to the Vice Chancellor within 30 days of the case
being determined by the 1st Respondent. Remarkably, the Petitioner’s student portal,
student e-learning portal and Student email were all disabled and/or blocked by the
Respondents on the day his verdict was made i.e. 25th June 2021 thus the Petitioner’s
inability to lodge an appeal. Further, all the University security officers have since
been directed by the Respondents not to allow the Petitioner into the University.
Technically, these restrictions have been imposed so as to deny the Petitioner a
platform or avenue to lodge an appeal hence he has been condemned unheard.
5. THAT as a direct consequence of the unlawful acts and/or omissions of the

Respondents, the Petitioner is completely unable to communicate to the school thus
unable to lodge an appeal against the unlawful decision of the 1st Respondent. The
Petitioner is therefore stranded in his apartment and is being denied education
despite the fact that he has paid the University fees in full and is not in any conflict
with the laws and/or rules of the 2nd Respondent.
6. THAT there is a notice mounted at the gate of the 2nd Respondent’s gate to the
effect that the Petitioner shouldn’t be allowed in school. That notice bears all the
confidential details of the Petitioner. Its mounting is aimed at embarrassing the
Petitioner.
7. THAT the Respondents have intentionally and wilfully and continue to infringe,
deny, violate and generally abuse the Petitioner’s rights as provided for in the
Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the Student’s Handbook.
8. THAT the acts and/or omissions of the Respondents have and continue to subject
the Petitioner to prejudice, ridicule, psychological torture and to pain and suffering.
9. THAT with each passing day, the Petitioner is missing out on classes and has
subsequently failed to submit assignments within the timelines given by the
instructors. The classes are still ongoing at the 2nd Respondent.
10. THAT based on the unfolding developments, the Petitioner’s chances to succeed in
life are diminishing by the day as he relies on education alone as the key to his
achieving anything meaningful in life. These cruel stunts by the Respondent are
casting a shadow on his life.
11. THAT accordingly, and unless this application is heard and determined urgently, the
Petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable damage and loss from the continued acts of
the Respondents which acts amount to a violation and infringement of the
Petitioner’s constitutional rights.
12. THAT if the orders being sought herein are granted, the Respondents will not suffer
any prejudice at all.
DATED at NAIROBI this………….……..day of ………………………………..…………………...…2021
SHISANYA & COMPANY ADVOCATES

ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER
DRAWN & FILED BY:

ARGWINGS KODHEK ROAD,
NYAKU HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, ROOM 18
P. O. BOX 2245 – 00100
NAIROBI.
EMAIL: info@shisanyaadvocates.co.ke
MOB. NO. 0711 247 436
TO BE SERVED UPON: -
THE SENATE, PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
LUMUMBA DRIVE, ROYSAMBU
P. O. BOX 56875 – 00200
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. +254 733 988 055
PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

P. O. BOX 56875 – 00200
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. +254 733 988 055
DR. JOSH T. AMWAGO

P. O. BOX 56875 – 00200
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. +254 733 988 055
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
KENYA (2010)
-AND-

-AND-

-AND-

-AND-
RULES, 2013
-BETWEEN-
-AND-

PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY..…...………………................. 2ND RESPONDENT
NOTICE OF MOTION
(Under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Fair Administrative Action Act, Order 51 of
the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, Judicature Act Cap 8, The High Court (Practice and
Procedure Rules (Part 1 rule 3); and all other enabling rules and legal provisions)
Waciira Mahihu Muya –vs-The Senate, Pan Africa Christian University & Others
TAKE NOTICE THAT this Honourable Court shall be moved on the
……………………...day of………………………2021 at 9 O’clock in the forenoon or
soon thereafter as Counsel for the Petitioner may be heard on this application for
ORDERS:
1. THAT this Application be certified urgent, service thereof be dispensed with and
be heard ex-parte in the first instance;
2. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application inter partes,
this Honourable Court be pleased to grant a Conservatory Order staying further
implementation of the Unlawful decision dated 25th June 2021 by the 1st
Respondent suspending the Petitioner herein WACIIRA MAHIHU MUYA, from
the 2nd Respondent.
3. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Petition, this Honourable
Court be pleased to grant a Conservatory Order staying further implementation
of the Unlawful decision dated 25th June 2021 by the 1st Respondent suspending
the Petitioner herein WACIIRA MAHIHU MUYA, from the 2nd Respondent.
4. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this Application inter partes,
this Honourable Court do issue a temporary injunction directing the
Respondents to forthwith and unconditionally permit the Petitioner herein,
WACIIRA MAHIHU MUYA to enter into the University premises, attend classes
and access all his e-learning platforms as well as participate in all other University
programmes and activities.
5. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this application, this

Honourable Court be pleased to grant an injunction restraining the 2nd
Respondent by itself, its agents, servants, employees and or any other person
whatsoever from acting upon the 1st Respondent’s decision dated 25th June 2021
to Suspend the Petitioner.
6. THAT a Conservatory Order in the nature of a prohibitory injunction be and is

hereby issued against the Respondents by themselves, their servants or agents or
any one authorized by them from commencing, continuing or concluding any
disciplinary process against the Petitioner or otherwise howsoever subjecting the
Petitioner to any annoyance or harassment pending the hearing and final
determination of this Application.
7. Any other relief the court deems fit to grant.
8. Costs of this Application be borne by the Respondents.
WHICH APPLICATION is based on the annexed Supporting Affidavit of WACIIRA

MAHIHU MUYA, the following grounds and such other and further grounds as shall be
adduced at the hearing hereof.
1. This Petition and Application relates to the rights of a University Student which
are continuously being abused by the Respondents in their respective individual
and collective capacities.
2. The Petitioner, a male adult aged 27 years is duly registered University Student
undertaking his Master’s Degree studies in the field of Marriage and Family
Therapy, Specializing in Children and adolescents therapy, has been suspended
for a full academic year from the 2nd Respondent effective 25th June, 2021
without any justifiable cause or reason.
3. The 3rd Respondent assaulted the Petitioner (in the school Chapel on 18th May
2021) whose only offense was seeking information and (the 3rd Respondent)
proceeded to formulate trumped-up allegations/charges on the conduct of the
Petitioner and the Respondents thereafter subjected the said Petitioner to an
unfair administrative action whereby his primary accusers were the same persons
who constituted the Disciplinary Committee which ultimately sat and suspended
the Petitioner with the approval of the 1st Respondent. This is in absolute
contravention of the legal principle of nemo judex in causa sua.
4. There exists the 2nd Respondent’s Students Hand Book which provides under
Section 7 (4) (C) for an avenue of appeal against the decisions of the 2nd
Respondent’s Senate. The said appeal should be lodged to the Vice Chancellor
within 30 days of the case being determined by the Senate. Remarkably, the
Petitioner’s student portal, student e-learning portal and Student email were all
disabled and/or blocked by the Respondents thus the Petitioner’s inability to
lodge an appeal. Further, all the University security officers have since been
directed not to allow the Petitioner into the University premises. Technically,
these restrictions have been imposed so as to deny the Petitioner a platform or
avenue to lodge an appeal hence he has been condemned unheard.
5. As a direct consequence of the unlawful acts and/or omissions of the

Respondents, the Petitioner is completely unable to communicate to the school
thus unable to lodge an appeal against the unlawful decision of the 1st
Respondent. The Petitioner has been left stranded in his apartment and is being
denied education despite the fact that he has paid the University fees in full.
6. There is a notice mounted at the gate of the 2 nd Respondent’s gate to the effect
that the Petitioner shouldn’t be allowed in school. That notice bears all the
Petitioner.
7. The Respondents have intentionally and wilfully and continue to infringe, deny,
violate and generally abuse the Petitioner’s rights as provided for in the
Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the Student’s Handbook.
8. The acts and/or omissions of the Respondents have and continue to subject the
Petitioner to prejudice, ridicule, psychological torture and to pain and suffering.
9. With each passing day, the Petitioner is missing out on classes and assignment’s
which are still ongoing at the 2nd Respondent.
10. Further, based on the unfolding developments, the Petitioner’s chances to

succeed in life are diminishing by the day as he relies on education alone as the
key to his achieving anything meaningful in his future. These cruel stunts by the
Respondents are casting a shadow on his life.
11. Accordingly, and unless this application is heard and determined urgently, the
Petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable damage and loss from the continued acts
of the Respondents which acts amounts to a violation and infringement of the
Petitioner’s constitutional rights.
12. If the orders being sought herein are granted, the Respondents will not suffer any
prejudice at all.


DRAWN & FILED BY:

P. O. BOX 2245 – 00100
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. 0711 247 436
P. O. BOX 56875 – 00200
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. +254 733 988 055

P. O. BOX 56875 – 00200
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. +254 733 988 055
DR. JOSH T. AMWAGO

P. O. BOX 56875 – 00200
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. +254 733 988 055
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
KENYA (2010)
-AND-

-AND-

-AND-

-AND-
RULES, 2013
-BETWEEN-
-AND-

PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY..…...………………................. 2 ND RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION AND PETITION
I, WACIIRA MAHIHU MUYA of c/o Post Office Box Number 30414 - 00100 Nairobi
in the Republic of Kenya do hereby make this oath and state as follows:
1. THAT I am a male adult of sound mind and a bonafide student of the 2nd
Respondent undertaking my Master’s Degree studies in the field of Marriage and
Family Therapy, Specializing in Children and adolescents therapy. My Registration
number is MMFT/16709/0/20. I am well conversant with the facts in issue hence
competent to swear this affidavit.
2. THAT I joined the 2nd Respondent in the year 2015 where I did Diploma in Early
Childhood Education, I then undertook a Bachelor’s Degree in counselling and I am
now doing my Master’s Degree. I have thus been a student of the 2nd Respondent
for a period of 7 years as of today.
3. THAT the events leading to my unlawful suspension are as follows: -
4. THAT on 17th February, 2021, the 2nd Respondent’s Students Electoral Commission
called for Applications from students who had aspirations of contesting in the
forthcoming students elections. Annexed hereto marked WMM – 1 is copy of the
said guidelines for Applications by the Electoral Commission.
5. THAT I immediately began putting my house in order by seeking various clearances

from relevant offices. Important to the foregoing is, on 22nd February 2021, the 3rd
Respondent who serves as Dean of Students and doubles up as the acting Chaplain
cleared me to vie in the then forthcoming elections. I also got clearance from the
2nd Respondent’s Registrar. Annexed hereto marked WMM – 2 is bundle of copies
of the said clearances.
6. THAT on 4th March 2021, my running mate and I submitted our applications,
unequivocally expressing our interests in the Positions of Chairperson and Vice
Chairperson of the Students Governing body.
7. THAT on 16th March 2021 an email was sent to all students and members of Staff of
the 2nd Respondent wherein the names of qualified persons were published. My
name was among the persons cleared to vie. Annexed hereto marked as WMM – 3
is a copy of the said list of aspirants.
8. THAT on 25th March 2021, the Electoral Commission chairperson sent out an email
to all students informing them of the date of elections and gave directions on the
manner of voting which would be electronically.
9. THAT on 28th March 2021 an email was sent to all students over elections and
remarkably, the Tribunal had disqualified me from contesting in the elections. This
email was sent a few hours to the election. Annexed hereto marked WMM – 4 is a
copy of the said email.
10. THAT under the 2nd Respondent’s Student’s Handbook, the Tribunal consists of the
3rd Respondent who is the Dean of Students, the Chaplain, Registrar and two or
three other program representatives).
11. THAT I must point out that it is the very same members of the Tribunal that had
previously cleared me to vie in the election. I did not understand the quick turn-
around in their decision.
12. THAT on 29th March 2021, I made an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal
which had unilaterally disqualified me from contesting without according me a affair
hearing on the matter. Annexed hereto marked WMM – 5 is a copy of my appeal
against the Tribunals decision.
13. THAT whereas no one had responded to my email wherein I had appealed against
the decision of the Tribunal, remarkably, at around mid-morning on the same day,
my name was again included on the candidates list. This ultimately confused the
students and it resulted into me losing the election by a margin of 2 votes since some
of my supporters didn’t turn up to vote.
14. THAT being dissatisfied with the events preceding the elections which ultimately
resulted and/or dismissed in losing the said election, I lodged an appeal which was
unilaterally rejected by the 3rd Respondent. I conceded the results and let the whole
issue lie.
15. THAT the swearing in of the elected leaders took place on 18th May 2021. Before
the swearing ceremony began, the Organizing Secretary elect was called by the
Students Electoral Commission chair and was informed that he was not going to be
sworn-in and no reasons were given.
16. THAT the swearing in of elected leaders was to take place in a service at the
University Chapel. During the ceremony, the 3rd Respondent herein addressed the
students and categorically said that the Organizing Secretary elect was not going to
be sworn-in without giving any reasons thereto.
17. THAT there was unrest among the students following the 3rd Respondent’s
announcement of his decision not to swear in the Organizing Secretary elect.
18. THAT after being sworn-in, the Secretary General walked out of the Chapel. I joined
him outside and we agreed to raise an objection to the unilateral decision of the 3rd
Respondent who is the Dean of Students, not to swear in the Organizing Secretary
elect. While outside the Chapel, the one Commission member joined us and we
were three in number.
19. THAT we were briefed by one of the Students Election Commission member that
the decision not to swear in the Organizing Secretary was not the Commission’s
decision but the Commission’s chairperson’s decision who is not a student but
University staff member.
20. THAT aggrieved by these developments, the Secretary General, one of the Student
Commissioner’s and myself decided to peacefully approach the 3rd Respondent who
was conducting the swearing-in of elected leaders in his other capacity as the acting
Chaplain. When we started moving in front of the chapel, we were ordered by the
3rd Respondent to go back and sit down. We insisted on raising the concern in the
said swearing in ceremony.
21. THAT while we agitated for the swearing in of the Organizing Secretary elect, and
while we were still standing in front of the chapel, the 3rd Respondent assaulted me
in his quest to have us sit down. I did not respond to his aggression.
22. THAT the 3rd Respondent subsequently whispered to me that he would ensure that
I get punished come what may. I felt threatened and I told my friends it would be
safe if we stepped out to avoid aggravating the issue any further.
23. THAT we walked out of the chapel immediately. The 3rd Defendant called the
security officers who took us out of the school compound.
24. THAT at the swearing in, the 3rd Respondent, the Vice Chancellor, the Deputy Vice
Chancellor academics and Dr. Kithinji – the Registrar were all present. One would
wonder would we really approach the front of the chapel without a just cause/
reason?
25. THAT on 25th June 2021 the three of us were served with Disciplinary letters.
Annexed hereto marked WMM – 6 is a bundle of the said letters.
26. THAT in the said disciplinary letters, we had all been charged with a similar offense
under Section 6.3.8 of the Student Handbook. Annexed hereto marked WMM – 7
is a copy of the 2nd Respondent’s Student Handbook.
27. THAT on 31st May 2021, we made a single/general response to the said disciplinary
letter whereupon we refuted the allegations. The letter is mistakenly dated 31st
March 2021. Annexed hereto marked WMM – 8 is copy of our response to the
disciplinary letter.
28. THAT on 21st June 2021 I received a letter inviting me for a disciplinary meeting on
24th June 2021. So were my two other friends invited for disciplinary meeting.
Annexed hereto marked WMM – 9 is a copy of the said letter.
29. THAT the membership of the Disciplinary Committee is as provided for under
Section 7 (4) (i) (a) of the 2nd Respondent’s Students Handbook. It includes;
i. The DVC Academic Affairs.

ii. Dean of Students.
iii. Registrar.
iv. Chaplain.
v. Two Student Representatives.
vi. Two members of the faculty appointed by the Senate.
30. THAT as I have already indicated in paragraphs 21, 22, 23 & 24 above, the members
of the Disciplinary Committee as listed hereinabove in particular the Dean of
Students, was at the centre of our agitation for the swearing in of the Organizing
Secretary elect.
31. THAT it is imperative to state that while we agitated for the swearing in of the
Organizing Secretary elect, we did so peaceably, we were not violent and neither
were we abusive nor armed. We did this peaceably and with utmost respect.
32. THAT I am advised by my advocates on record which advise I verily believe to be

true that the Constitution under Article 37 grants anybody the right to peaceably
and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions to
relevant authorities. I dare say, our actions squarely fall within this right.
33. THAT I am further advised by my advocates on record which advice I verily believe
to be true that where any law is in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution
must prevail.
34. THAT remarkably, despite being clearly conflicted on the foregoing (and having
threatened me as mentioned in paragraph 22 above), the 3rd Respondent sat in the
Disciplinary Committee thereby participating in the determination of our case.
35. THAT I am also advised by my advocates on record which advice I verily believe
to be true that;
i. By sitting in the Disciplinary committee, the 3rd Respondent breached the

legal principle, “nemo judex in causa sua” translated as, one cannot be a
judge in his own case.
ii. That the 3rd Respondent was also in breach of the legal principle that
justice must not only be done but must be seen to being done.
iii. That the 3rd Respondent having had threatened me previously, by sitting
in the Disciplinary Committee, it was akin to having an antelope get
justice in a court presided over by a lion.
36. THAT whereas the disciplinary committee sat on 24th June, 2021, remarkably, the
1st Respondent sat the following day i.e. 25th June 2021 and approved my
suspension. Nothing could be further than the truth, it is evident that I was the
primary target of the Respondents. This is demonstrated through the 1st
Respondent’s decision to suspend me, give a warning letter to my friend Kevin
Maingi Wambua and no verdict has been communicated to Larry Odira Seko to
date. Annexed hereto marked WMM – 10 is a copy of my Suspension letter.
37. THAT I was nevertheless not served with the suspension letter.
38. THAT on 26th June, 2021 was a Saturday. I woke up and did some cleaning. Later
in the day, I decided to submit my assignment for it was due. I tried to log into my
e-learning portal and I found out that it had been blocked. I tried opening my
student email and the same had been blocked as well. Precisely, all my school e-
learning platforms had been blocked. Annexed hereto marked as WMM – 11 is a
bundle of photos and emails evidencing the same.
39. THAT I was frustrated and stressed. I decided to go to school to find out whether it
was a system breakdown and in the alternative find out what was wrong. Upon
reaching the gate, I was informed by the Security Officers that they had been
directed by the 3rd Respondent not to allow me in school.
40. THAT there is a notice mounted at the gate of the 2nd Respondent’s gate to the
effect that the Petitioner shouldn’t be allowed in school. That notice bears all the
Petitioner. Annexed hereto marked as WMM – 12 is a copy of photos evidencing
the same.
41. THAT up until 26th June 2021 I was in the dark and I wasn’t aware of the unlawful
decision made by the 1st Respondent.
42. THAT I thereafter, using my own private and/or personal email, wrote to various
offices in the 2nd Respondent trying to find out what was the problem. It is then that
the University Registrar Dr. Vikiru forwarded to me a copy of the letter suspending
me from the 2nd Respondent. Annexed hereto marked WMM – 13 is a copy of the
forwarded mail.
43. THAT the Respondents actions greatly contravene my right of Appeal as provided
under Section 7 (4) (C) which provide that the decision of the 1st Respondent can
be appealed within 30 days from the date of the decision being made. To date, I
have not been able to lodge an appeal because I cannot access school and neither
can I send the said appeal via my personal email account.
44. THAT on 29th June 2011 my mother wrote to the University Vice Chancellor
inquiring into the foregoing matter. The Vice Chancellor affirmed the decision of
the 1st Respondent. Annexed hereto marked WMM – 14 is a copy of the email.
45. THAT even if I were to file an Appeal, the said Appeal ought to be lodged to the
Vice Chancellor who has already made up her mind on my case. Only this
Honourable Court that can intervene in my situation.
46. THAT I have no doubts at all that the 3rd Respondent played a bigger role in having
me suspended from school for he had promised to punish me harshly.
47. THAT despite of the unbefitting character and/or conduct of the 3rd Respondent,
the Vice Chancellor of the 2nd Respondent has proceeded to confirm him as the
substantive Dean of Students. Annexed hereto marked WMM – 15 is a copy of the
confirmation letter.
48. THAT I do not understand why the 3rd Respondent is extremely bitter with me.
49. THAT I believe I have been unfairly treated. Whereas we were charged of the same
offense, one of my colleague was only warned and the other one has not received
his verdict to date.
50. THAT I have no doubt that the 3rd Respondent is indeed making good his threat to
have me punished.
51. THAT this Honourable Court is a shrine of Justice where all those whose rights have
been infringed, threatened or denied run to and are saved/protected.
52. THAT I am a humble young man, well measured and who has previously served
the 2nd Respondent as a leader in other capacities.
53. THAT unless this Honourable Court urgently intervenes, I stand to suffer great and
irreparable loss, ridicule, prejudice and torture.
54. THAT it is in the interest of justice and fairness that this Application be allowed.
55. THAT the Respondents will not suffer any harm or prejudice whatsoever if this
Honourable Court were to allow this Application.
56. THAT what is stated hereinabove is true to the best of my knowledge, information,
and belief save where otherwise stated, sources whereof have been disclosed.
SWORN at NAIROBI by the said )
WACIIRA MAHIHU MUYA )
)
This day of 2021 ) .........................................
)
BEFORE ME ) DEPONENT
)
)
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS )
DRAWN & FILED BY:

P. O. BOX 2245 – 00100
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. 0711 247 436
P. O. BOX 56875 – 00200
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. +254 733 988 055

P. O. BOX 56875 – 00200
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. +254 733 988 055
DR. JOSH T. AMWAGO

P. O. BOX 56875 – 00200
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. +254 733 988 055
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
KENYA (2010)
-AND-

-AND-

-AND-

-AND-
RULES, 2013
-BETWEEN-
-AND-

PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY..…...………………................. 2 ND RESPONDENT
PETITION
TO: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR,

THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA,
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION,
MILIMANI LAW COURTS,
NAIROBI.
THE HUMBLE PETITION of WACIIRA MAHIHU MUYA, whose address for purposes of
this Petition shall be care of Messrs. Shisanya & Company Advocates, Nyaku House, Room 18,
Argwings Kodhek Road, P. O. Box 2245 – 00100, NAIROBI. Email:
info@shisanyaadvocates.co.ke , Mob. No. 0711 247 436 in the Republic of Kenya is as follows:
A. DESCRIPTION OF PARTIES
1. The Petitioner is a male adult of sound mind aged 27 years, a bonafide University
student at the Pan Africa Christian University whose constitutional rights have
been infringed, threatened and violated by the Respondents, and whose address
for purpose of this petition shall be Messrs. Shisanya & Company Advocates, Nyaku
House, Room 18, Argwings Kodhek Road, P. O. Box 2245 – 00100, NAIROBI. Email:
info@shisanyaadvocates.co.ke , Mob. No. 0711 247 436.
2. The 1st Respondent is the decision-making organ of the 2nd Respondent, who for
all intents and purposes is responsible for the government of the School, and
whose address for purposes of this suit shall be through the Petitioner’s
Advocates.
3. The 2nd Respondent is a Private University established under charter wherein the
Petitioner has all along been undertaking his Diploma, Bachelor’s Degree and
currently Master’s Degree and whose address for purposes of this suit shall be
through the Petitioner’s Advocates.
4. The 3rd Respondent is an employee of the 2nd Respondent who serves as the Dean
of Students and also doubles up as the Chaplain of the 2nd Respondent and whose
address for purposes of this suit shall be through the Petitioner’s Advocates.
B. THE LEGAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE PETITION

i. Article 10 of the Constitution provides the national values and principles
of governance that bind all State organs, State officers, public officers and
all persons whenever any of them applies or interprets the Constitution
and such national values and principles of governance include human
dignity, equity, social justice and human rights.
ii. Article 19 (3) (a), states that the rights and fundamental freedoms in the
Bill of Rights belong to each individual and are not granted by the state;
iii. Article 19 (3) (c), the rights granted in the Bill of Rights are subject only to
the limitations contemplated in the Constitution.
iv. Article 20 (1) states that the Bill of Rights applies to all law and binds all
state organs and all persons.
v. Article 20 (2), states that every person shall enjoy the right to be protected
by the constitution to the greatest extent consistent with the nature of the
right or fundamental freedom.
vi. Article 22 of the Constitution guarantees and entitles every person the
right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental
freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is
threatened.
vii. Article 23 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to hear and
determine applications for redress of a denial, violation or infringement
of, or threat to, a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights, and
to grant appropriate relief, including a declaration of rights, a
conservatory order, and order of compensation and an order of judicial
review.
viii. Article 24 (1) states that rights or fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights
shall not be limited except by law and then only to the extent that
limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society
based on human dignity equality and freedom taking into account all
relevant factors.
ix. Article 25 states that the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment shall not be limited.
x. Article 27 of the Constitution states that every person is equal before the
law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.
xi. Article 29 (d) states that every person has the right to freedom and security
of the person which includes the right not to be subjected to torture in
any manner, whether physical or psychological.
xii. Article 32 (1) states that every person has the right to freedom of
conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.
xiii. Article 33 states that every person has the right to freedom of expression
which includes freedom to seek, receive or impart information or ideas.
xiv. Article 35 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right of access
to information held by another person and required for the exercise or
protection of any right or fundamental freedom.
xv. Article 37 states that every person has the right, peaceably and unarmed,
to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket, and to present petitions to public
authorities.
xvi. Article 47 of the Constitution confers on the Petitioners the right to

administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and
procedurally fair. (2) If a right or fundamental freedom of a person has
been or is likely to be adversely affected by administrative action, the
person has the right to be given written reasons for the action.
xvii. Article 50 of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to
have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided
in a fair and public hearing before a court or, if appropriate, another
independent and impartial tribunal or body. (2) every accused person has
the right to a fair trial.
xviii. Article 165(3) gives jurisdiction to the High Court to hear and determine
whether a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been
denied, violated, infringed or threatened.
xix. Article 258 of the Constitution gives every person a right to institute court
proceedings claiming that the Constitution has been contravened or is
threatened to be contravened while Article 22 of the Constitution gives
every person the right to enforce his bill of rights by instituting court
proceedings.
C. GROUNDS OF THE PETITION

1. The Petitioner, a duly registered and bonafide University student has been
suspended for one academic year from Pan Africa Christian University effective
25th June 2021 to date, without cause or any justifiable reason.
2. On 18th May 2021, there was a service wherein the elected student leaders of the
2nd Respondent were being sworn-in. Despite winning the election, the
Organizing Secretary Elect received a communication from the 3rd Respondent
that he was not going to be sworn in. This decision was ridiculous since no
reasons had been proffered. Remarkably, when the swearing-in ceremony
began, the 3rd Respondent affirmed his decision not to swear in the Organizing
Secretary Elect.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the 3rd Respondent, the Petitioner, one of the
Student’s Electoral Commission member and the Secretary General (who had
just been sworn in) moved to the front of the chapel and peacefully demanded
that the Organizing Secretary be sworn in. They had been raising their hands to
air out their discomfort but were always ignored by the 3rd Respondent. When
the three got to the front of the chapel, the 3rd Respondent became furious and
violent and ended up assaulting the Petitioner and one Larry Odira Seko. The
actions by the 3rd Respondent caused a bit of unrest from the students. As if not
enough, the 3rd Respondent whispered to the Petitioner that he would punish
him harshly. The Petitioner and the two friends did not respond to the 3rd
Respondent’s aggression but chose to walk out of the chapel.
4. On 25th June 2021, the three students namely the Petitioner, Larry Odira Seko
and Kevin Maingi Wambua received letters inviting them for disciplinary
hearing. Remarkably, the 3rd Respondent despite of having assaulted the
Petitioner and one Larry Odira, he also sat in the Disciplinary Committee to
decide the fate of the three students. Suprisingly, the accuser had become the
judge which is against the principle of nemo judex in causa sua.
5. Apparently, and in a supersonic speed, the 1st Respondent sat on 25th June 2021
and resolved to suspend the Petitioner on the basis of the decision of the
Disciplinary Committee. This decision was however not communicated to the
Petitioner.
6. On 26th June, 2021 the Petitioner woke up and did some cleaning. Later in the
day, the Petitioner decided to submit his assignment which was then due. When
the Petitioner tried to log into his e-learning portal, he found out that it had
been blocked. He also tried opening his student email and the same had been
blocked as well. Precisely, all the Petitioner’s school e-learning platforms had all
been blocked.
7. In view of the hereinabove developments, the Petitioner decided to go to school

to find out whether it was a system breakdown and in the alternative find out
what would be wrong. Upon reaching the gate, he was informed by the Security
Officers that they had been directed by the 3rd Respondent not to allow the
Petitioner in school.
8. Using his own private and/or personal email, the Petitioner wrote to various
offices in the 2nd Respondent trying to find out what was the problem. It is then
that the University Registrar Dr. Vikiru forwarded to him a copy of the letter
suspending the Petitioner from the 2nd Respondent.
9. The Respondents actions greatly contravened the Petitioner’s right of Appeal as

provided under Section 7 (4) (C) which states that the decision of the 1st
Respondent can be appealed to the Vice Chancellor within 30 days from the
date of the decision being made. To date, the Petitioner has not been able to
lodge an appeal because he cannot access school and neither can he send the
said appeal via his personal email account. Very sadly, the Vice Chancellor to
whom the Petitioner ought to lodge the appeal has already pronounced herself
on the issue by affirming the 1st Respondent’s decision dated 25th June, 2021.
D. SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

1. The Petitioner’s right of a fair administrative action that is expeditious, efficient,
lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair under Article 47 of the Constitution has
been violated. Due process leading to his suspension was not followed. He has
been denied a fair administrative process by being constrained to appear before a
highly conflicted disciplinary committee to determine his case, if any. By allowing
his primary accuser to sit in the disciplinary committee, the entire disciplinary
procedure flawed.
2. The Petitioner’s right to services in the education sector have been infringed, in
violation of Article 46 and 55 of the Constitution. Additionally, the protection of
his psychological health and sustainable economic interests have been abused by
the arbitrary suspension of him from school. School fees paid is being lost, as this
process takes a mental toll on the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner has a right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution.
Having been accused of indiscipline, he has a right to be presumed innocent until
the contrary is proved. The Petitioner ought to have been allowed to challenge
the decision of the 1st Respondent as provided for under Section 7 (4) (c). The
immediate imposition of restrictions and blocking of all his e-learning platforms
violates the Petitioner’s right to a fair hearing since he still had an avenue to prove
his innocence. Further, he would not have any fair hearing in a committee where
the primary accuser was the jury.
4. The Petitioner, being a young man aged 27 years old, has a right to education
under the Constitution. This has also been enshrined in Article 55 of the
Constitution which champions for equitable access of the Petitioner to an
education institution, like the 2nd Respondent. He has been literally chased from
school, and capriciously denied access thereto despite being properly admitted.
The Petitioner has a right to education which right has been violated by his
suspension from school, arbitrarily so.
5. Even if it were the case that the Petitioner interrupted the swearing in ceremony,
which is denied, Article 37 of the Constitution grants every person the right,
peaceably and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket, and to present
petitions to public or any authorities. This right can only be said to have been
abused where violence was at the centre stage, which wasn’t the case on the
foregoing.
6. The right to a fair trial cannot be limited, under Article 25 of the Constitution.
However, if there be any right that needs to be limited, written reasons need to
be proffered to the Petitioner. The limitation must be inscribed in law, and
justifiable before an open and democratic society, as entrenched in Article 24 of
the Constitution. This was violated.
E. YOUR PETITIONER PRAYS FOR:
i. A DECLARATORY ORDER that the fundamental rights and freedoms of the

Petitioner under Article 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 46, 47, 50, 55 of the Constitution
have been violated by the Respondents.
ii. A MANDATORY INJUNCTION directing the Respondents to:

Waciira Mahihu Muya –vs-The Senate, Pan Africa Christian University & Others
a. Forthwith and unconditionally permit the Petitioner to enter into the
University premises, attend classes and access all his e-learning platforms
as well as participate in all other University programmes.
b. Conduct remedial sessions to bring the Petitioner up to speed with classes

and recovery of the syllabus that he missed; and
c. Administer all assignments to the Petitioner that he missed.
iii. A PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION proscribing the 1st and 2nd Respondents from:
(a) Suspending, ejecting, banishing or expelling the Petitioner from Pan Africa
Christian University without proper administrative processes and a fair
hearing;
(b) Discriminating against the Petitioner on any ground or reason, or treating

him at any degree of disadvantage.
(c) Commencing, continuing or concluding any disciplinary process against

the Petitioner or otherwise howsoever subjecting the Petitioner to any
annoyance or harassment.
iv. A MANDATORY INJUNCTION to compel the 1st & 2nd Respondents to act
firmly and decisively to commence disciplinary action against the 3rd
Respondent for his gross violation of the Petitioner’s rights in assaulting him.
v. AN ORDER OF STRUCTURAL INTERDICT, for this honourable Court to

supervise the integration of the Petitioner in the school, and compliance with
its orders.
vi. General damages for the violation of the Petitioner’s Constitutional rights and
fundamental freedoms.
vii. Costs of this Application be borne by the Respondent.

DRAWN & FILED BY:

P. O. BOX 2245 – 00100
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. 0711 247 436
P. O. BOX 56875 – 00200
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. +254 733 988 055

P. O. BOX 56875 – 00200
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. +254 733 988 055
DR. JOSH T. AMWAGO

P. O. BOX 56875 – 00200
NAIROBI.
MOB. NO. +254 733 988 055

The Senate, Pan Africa Christian University: Waciira Mahihu Muya - VS-& Others

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Senate, Pan Africa Christian University: Waciira Mahihu Muya - VS-& Others

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Senate, Pan Africa Christian University & Others

Waciira Mahihu Muya –vs-

IN THE MATTER OF: ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND

IN THE MATTER OF: LIMITATION OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION AND TRAINING;

IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONTRAVENTION AND OR THREATENED

WACIIRA MAHIHU MUYA..…………………..............................................PETITIONER

THE SENATE, PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY………………..….1ST RESPONDENT

5. THAT as a direct consequence of the unlawful acts and/or omissions of the

DATED at NAIROBI this………….……..day of ………………………………..…………………...…2021

SHISANYA & COMPANY ADVOCATES

DRAWN & FILED BY:

PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

DR. JOSH T. AMWAGO

IN THE MATTER OF: ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND

IN THE MATTER OF: LIMITATION OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION AND TRAINING;

IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONTRAVENTION AND OR THREATENED

WACIIRA MAHIHU MUYA..…………………..............................................PETITIONER

THE SENATE, PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY………………..….1ST RESPONDENT

5. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this application, this

6. THAT a Conservatory Order in the nature of a prohibitory injunction be and is

7. Any other relief the court deems fit to grant.

8. Costs of this Application be borne by the Respondents.

WHICH APPLICATION is based on the annexed Supporting Affidavit of WACIIRA

5. As a direct consequence of the unlawful acts and/or omissions of the

10. Further, based on the unfolding developments, the Petitioner’s chances to

DATED at NAIROBI this………….……..day of ………………………………..…………………...…2021

SHISANYA & COMPANY ADVOCATES

DRAWN & FILED BY:

PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

DR. JOSH T. AMWAGO

IN THE MATTER OF: ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND

IN THE MATTER OF: LIMITATION OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION AND TRAINING;

IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONTRAVENTION AND OR THREATENED

WACIIRA MAHIHU MUYA..…………………..............................................PETITIONER

THE SENATE, PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY………………..….1ST RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION AND PETITION

3. THAT the events leading to my unlawful suspension are as follows: -

5. THAT I immediately began putting my house in order by seeking various clearances

i. The DVC Academic Affairs.

32. THAT I am advised by my advocates on record which advise I verily believe to be

i. By sitting in the Disciplinary committee, the 3rd Respondent breached the

DRAWN & FILED BY:

PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

DR. JOSH T. AMWAGO

IN THE MATTER OF: ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND

IN THE MATTER OF: LIMITATION OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION AND TRAINING;

IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONTRAVENTION AND OR THREATENED

WACIIRA MAHIHU MUYA..…………………..............................................PETITIONER

THE SENATE, PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY………………..….1ST RESPONDENT

TO: THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR,

B. THE LEGAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE PETITION

xvi. Article 47 of the Constitution confers on the Petitioners the right to

C. GROUNDS OF THE PETITION

7. In view of the hereinabove developments, the Petitioner decided to go to school

9. The Respondents actions greatly contravened the Petitioner’s right of Appeal as

D. SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

E. YOUR PETITIONER PRAYS FOR:

i. A DECLARATORY ORDER that the fundamental rights and freedoms of the

ii. A MANDATORY INJUNCTION directing the Respondents to:

b. Conduct remedial sessions to bring the Petitioner up to speed with classes

c. Administer all assignments to the Petitioner that he missed.

(b) Discriminating against the Petitioner on any ground or reason, or treating

(c) Commencing, continuing or concluding any disciplinary process against