NAIROBI, Kenya – The High Court has upheld the University of Nairobi’s decision to shift examinations for its Bachelor of Laws (LLB) Module II Evening Programme from online to physical mode, ruling that the move was lawful and justified by concerns over academic integrity.
In a judgment delivered after a petition filed by 39 law students, the court found that the university acted within its mandate when it discontinued online examinations, which had been introduced as a temporary measure during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The students had argued that the decision was illegal, unreasonable and made without public participation.
They told the court that they had enrolled in the programme partly because it was offered through online distance learning, allowing them to balance studies with full-time employment. Some warned that the change could force them to drop out.
However, the University of Nairobi defended the move, stating that online exams were never intended to be permanent and that academic staff had raised serious concerns about cheating and plagiarism during virtual assessments.
Court documents show the university informed the judge that the Faculty Academic Committee resolved to revert to physical examinations after reports that the credibility of online assessments had been compromised.
“When the faculty discovered that the credibility and integrity of online examinations was at stake following reports of cheating and plagiarism documented by academic staff, it resolved to revert to physical examinations,” the judgment reads.
Faculty Acted Within Its Mandate
A central issue before the court was whether the Faculty Academic Committee had the authority to approve the change in examination mode.
The petitioners argued that only the University Senate could alter examination policy, insisting that the faculty’s role was limited to making recommendations.
But the university maintained that its charter allows for delegated authority, enabling faculties and departments to determine appropriate modes of assessment.
The judge agreed with the university, ruling that the faculty did not exceed its mandate.
“The decision by the respondents was intra vires, and unless the petitioners prove that the powers were exercised unreasonably, the decision must stand,” the judge said.
Court Rejects Claims of Lack of Public Participation
The students also claimed the decision was made abruptly and without adequate consultation.
In response, the university told the court that students had been involved in the development of academic guidelines and that a memo communicating the change was issued at least five weeks before the examinations.
The court found the notice period reasonable and rejected claims of unfairness.
“I disagree that the notice given was abrupt. In my view, the respondents dealt with the matter fairly and reasonably,” the judge ruled.
He added that the decision was aimed at protecting academic standards and maintaining the credibility of university qualifications.
Petition Dismissed
The court further noted that none of the petitioners had been discontinued from their studies and that the university had made provisions for special examinations in August 2025 for students with valid reasons.
“In my considered view, the decision was taken to protect the credibility of examinations following reported malpractices. It was an appropriate measure,” the judge held.
The petition was dismissed, with each party ordered to bear its own costs.
