The High Court in Nakuru has struck out a petition filed by a former Egerton University student who claimed his constitutional rights were violated after being discontinued from the institution.
Joel Tuitoek Cherogony filed the petition in August 2023, accusing Egerton University of frustrating his academic journey and violating his rights under Articles 27, 28, 29, 35, 47, and 55 of the Constitution.
Cherogony was admitted in 2012 to pursue a Bachelor of Science in Clinical Medicine and Surgery.
He claimed he was subjected to poor training, late lectures, lack of mentorship, unfair evaluation, and eventually discontinued after allegedly failing a unit due to the university’s negligence.
He said the university changed the course title and mode of study midway, which affected his academic progress.
He also argued that despite passing certain units, including Critical Thinking, the university failed him unfairly.
He further accused Egerton of denying him clinical mentorship opportunities and subjecting him to an end-of-course examination without proper training.
But in a judgment delivered virtually on June 30, 2025, Justice Julius Nang’ea ruled that the petition did not meet the threshold of a constitutional case.
“This is not therefore a strictly Constitutional Petition,” stated Justice Nang’ea. “Rather, the Petitioner’s complaint appears to belong to the realm of judicial review of decisions of administrative bodies.”
The judge noted that the petitioner failed to specify how the cited constitutional provisions were violated.
“No specific evidence has been offered proving that these rights have been denied to the Petitioner,” the court ruled.
Egerton University, through an affidavit sworn by its Registrar of Academic Affairs, Professor Mwanarusi Said, defended its decision.
The university said Cherogony was lawfully discontinued after failing a repeat exam in his third year, as per the rules governing medical programmes.
The university accused Cherogony of abusing the court process and maintained that his constitutional rights had not been breached.
It added that his appeal was dismissed by the university’s internal appeals committee and his academic failures did not warrant judicial interference.
“The court cannot be invited to interfere with internal workings of the Respondent as a statutory body without showing that its decision complained of is illegal, irrational and/or unreasonable,” the university’s counsel submitted.
Justice Nang’ea upheld the university’s argument, citing the principle of constitutional avoidance and emphasized that the matter was more appropriate for judicial review under the Fair Administrative Action Act.
“The doctrine of Constitutional avoidance in my view accordingly applies,” the judge ruled.
The petition was struck out, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
“Considering the relationship that existed between the parties, they shall bear their own costs,” the judge said.
