High Court upholds MKU Oral Health Degree quashes Ministry Directive
The High Court in Nairobi has stopped the Ministry of Health from interfering with the Bachelor of Science in Oral Health programme at Mount Kenya University, ruling that the Cabinet Secretary for Health had no legal authority to order its discontinuation.
In a landmark ruling, the Court affirmed that the programme is legally accredited by the Commission for University Education (CUE) and therefore remains valid and operational. The judges further held that the Ministry of Health acted outside its legal mandate when it attempted to interfere with the university programme.
The case stemmed from a letter dated February 3, 2026, addressed to the Vice Chancellor of Mount Kenya University, in which the Ministry of Health advised the institution to discontinue the oral health degree programme, claiming it was not aligned with the country’s oral health needs and lacked a clearly established service delivery gap.
The ministry further directed the university to develop a transition plan for students already enrolled in the programme within 21 days, raising fears among hundreds of students over the future of their studies.
The Oral Health Association of Kenya moved to court, arguing that the directive was unlawful, arbitrary and amounted to executive overreach. The association maintained that only the Commission for University Education (CUE), under the Universities Act, has the exclusive legal mandate to accredit, approve or discontinue university academic programmes.
The association also argued that the directive violated constitutional provisions on fair administrative action, saying the decision had been made without public participation, consultation, or giving affected students and stakeholders an opportunity to be heard.
In response, the Attorney General’s office, appearing for itself as the second respondent, raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the association lacked legal standing to file the case since the letter had been addressed to Mount Kenya University and not the association.
However, Justice Musyoka dismissed the objection, holding that the matter qualified as public interest litigation under Articles 22 and 47 of the Constitution and that the association had a right to challenge actions affecting public interest and constitutional rights.
The judge further ruled that although the ministry’s letter appeared advisory at first glance, its language effectively amounted to a directive because it instructed the university to prepare an exit strategy for enrolled students and report back within strict timelines.
“The phrase ‘you are advised’ was deceptively polite,” the judge observed, noting that the letter effectively communicated a decision to wind up the programme.
Justice Musyoka found that the Health Cabinet Secretary had acted outside the law, stating that the Universities Act grants the exclusive mandate to approve and regulate university programmes to the Commission for University Education, not the Ministry of Health.
He ruled that the Health Ministry had no legal basis to directly communicate with universities over academic programmes without going through the Ministry of Education and the relevant statutory bodies.
The court consequently allowed the application and issued orders prohibiting the Health Cabinet Secretary from interfering with, suspending or discontinuing the oral health degree programme. The court also declared the programme lawful and ordered that it continues uninterrupted.
Justice Musyoka awarded costs of the case to the Oral Health Association of Kenya, saying the Health Cabinet Secretary had acted ultra vires — beyond the powers granted by law.
Ends
About The Author
