SIMEON MANYAKI vs INSTITUTE OF FINANCE MANAGEMENT 1984 TLR 304

Facts

The applicant was a third year student at the Institute of Finance Management. After the January 1984 final examinations it was discovered that the examinations papers and model answers had been extensively leaked. The examination results were nullified and students were called upon to re-sit in April, 1984. In addition a committee was set up to probe the leakage and prepare a report. The applicant was one of those persons who were investigated by the probe committee. On April 27,1984, the applicant was officially informed that he had passed the April, 1984 examinations. Five days later, i.e., on May 2, 1984 he was served with a letter terminating his studies at the Institute with immediate effect, nullifying his April, A examination results and barring him from attempting any IFM examinations in future.The applicant filed the application requesting the High Court to exercise its discretion and grant two orders, namely (i) an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Executive Committee ofthe Council of the Institute of Finance Management dated 2nd May, 1984, and (ii) an order of mandamus requiring the Council of the Institute to award him an Advanced Diploma in Accountancy. It was argued in favour of the applicant that the probe committee did not sufficiently appraise the applicant of the prejudicial allegation levelled against him and that he was not afforded opportunity of being heard.

Held: (i) An administrative body exercising functions that impinge directly on legally recognized interests has a duty to act judicially in accordance with the rules of natural justice,

 (ii) disciplinary proceedings in higher educational institutions have to be conducted in conformity with natural justice provided at least the penalty imposed or likely to be imposed is severe

(iii) the applicant whose rights and legitimate expectations stood to be so adversely affected by the inquiry had the right:

 (a) of being sufficiently appraised of the particulars of the prejudicial allegations that were to be made or had been made against him, so that he could effectively prepare his answer and collect evidence necessary to rebut the case against him;

 (b) subject to the need for withholding details in order to protect other overridingm interest, of being accorded sufficient opportunity of controverting or commenting on the materials that had been tendered or were to be tendered against him;

 (c) of presenting his own case;

 (d) of being given a reasonable and fair deal

 (iv) the applicant was deprived of his right.