BY SAM ALFAN.
The High Court has quashed new fees introduced by University of Nairobi for doctors pursuing master’s degree.
Justice Anthony Mrima declared that the implementation of the Maximum Differentiated Unit Cost (DUC) criteria, which introduced the new fee structure as unconstitutional and null and void.
Although Justice Anthony Mrima rejected the claim by Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists and Dentists’ Union (KMPUD) that the fees were ‘astronomical and beyond the reach of many Kenyans’, he agreed with the union that there was no public participation before the university increased the new fees.
“In the end, there is no difficulty in holding that the 2nd Respondent violated Articles 10(2)(a) and 201 of the Constitution for failure to undertake sufficient public participation prior to the preparation of the Differentiated Unit Cost Criteria (DUC),” the Judge said.
The Judge noted that the need for revision of the fees is inevitable, being the only way UoN will remain viable and sustain its programmes.
However, in doing so, he said the university must keep within the legal confines. “At the moment, this Court can only sympathise with the constrained financial environment UoN finds itself in,” the judge observed.
The Union challenged the fees announced by the University’s Executive Board on or about May 17, 2021 and published on May 19, 2021 and on the University’s website revising the fees for Masters Programmes, Dentistry and Pharmacy (Pre-Clinical & Clinical).
The handbook indicated that the transition and implementation of the DUC and revised administrative charges would commence in August 2021 with the first year students.
Aggrieved with the changes brought about by the handbook on the basis of the DUC, the union Dr Davji Bhimji Atella argued that the fees were astronomical and beyond the reach of many students.
The union further contended that the upward revision of the academic fees violated the public’s right to the highest attainable standard of health and to education under Article 43(1)(a) and (f) of the Constitution respectively.
It further was its case that the implementation of the increased fees was done in violation of Article 47(1) of the Constitution as its publication and import amounted to unfair administrative action for want of lawfulness, reasonableness and procedural fairness.
