Court upholds council chair's appointment, setting precedent on honorary doctorates in academia

In a landmark judgment that is set to redefine the qualifications for leadership in Kenya's higher education sector, the Labour Court in Kakamega has dismissed two petitions challenging the legality of top officials at Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology (MMUST).

The ruling, delivered by Justice David Nderitu, effectively affirms that an honorary doctorate can be considered a valid qualification for the prestigious appointment as the Chairperson of a University Council, a precedent likely to spark debate on academic standards and experiential merit.

The consolidated petitions, E011 and E024, were filed by two individuals, Eugine Antipah Wamalwa and Johnson Simiyu Litiema, acting in person.

They sought to oust MMUST’s Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Solomon Igosangwa Shibairo, and the University Council Chairperson, Dr Pamela Sitienei, arguing their appointments were invalid.

The case against Prof. Shibairo was primarily based on the claim that his appointment was never gazetted, an allegation the court found baseless, noting there is no legal requirement for such a publication.

However, the core of the legal battle, and the element with the most far-reaching implications, revolved around Dr. Sitienei’s qualifications. The petitioner, Mr Litiema, argued that Dr Sitienei, aged 42, only holds an earned undergraduate degree in Journalism and an honorary doctorate in divinity from My Life Bible College in Maryland, USA. He contended that this contravened Section 7(1)(a) of the Universities Act, which requires a Council Chairperson to hold a doctorate. Mr Litiema insisted the law implicitly meant an “earned” PhD, the product of years of rigorous academic research, not an honorary award bestowed for other achievements.

In a decisive interpretation of the law, Justice Nderitu found no merit in this distinction. The court held that the Universities Act does not differentiate between an “earned” and an “honorary” doctorate.

“The relevant law does not distinguish between the so-called ‘earned’ doctorate and an honorary one. There is no evidence by the petitioner that the university where the appointee was awarded the doctoral degree is not recognised in Kenya. There is also no provision in the law to the effect that the referenced doctoral degree shall be ‘earned’ and not honorary,” the judgment read.

This finding establishes a legal precedent, confirming that for the purpose of appointing a University Council Chair, an honorary doctorate from a recognised institution satisfies the statutory requirement of holding a "doctorate," even if the individual's highest earned academic qualification is a bachelor's degree or even a diploma.

The judgment implicitly champions a broader definition of qualification, one that potentially prioritises leadership experience, strategic vision, and other non-academic achievements over traditional academic credentials. The respondents, through their lawyers, had successfully demonstrated that Dr Sitienei’s appointment followed a transparent and competitive process conducted by the Public Service Commission and the University Council.

By refusing to nullify the appointment, the court signalled that the statutory bodies entrusted with the recruitment had acted within their mandate and found Dr Sitienei, with her blend of a basic earned degree and an honorary doctorate, “academically and professionally qualified” for the role.

This opens the door for more individuals with distinguished careers in industry, public service, or the arts—who may have been recognised with honorary degrees but lack advanced earned degrees—to be considered for the highest governance roles in universities, institutions traditionally dominated by those with extensive scholarly publication records.

The court’s journey to this substantive ruling was paved with procedural hurdles. Petition E011 of 2024 by Mr Wamalwa was thrown out at a preliminary stage for being “incompetent, untenable, and incomplete.” The judge found the petition was undated, unsigned, and supported by an affidavit that was not properly commissioned by a lawyer, rendering it “fatally defective.”

While the court opted to overlook similar technical shortcomings in Mr Litiema’s petition in the spirit of justice for a self-represented litigant, it ultimately found his case lacked evidential substance.

Justice Nderitu did, however, chide the university for its failure to respond to Mr Litiema’s initial letter requesting information (the gazette notice for Prof. Shibairo's appointment and his appointment letter), stating that had the information been provided promptly, “probably the time and the money spent on this litigation would have been saved.” He reminded all public institutions that access to information is a constitutional imperative.

In the end, with both petitions dismissed and no order as to costs due to their public interest nature, the status quo at MMUST remains.