The Kenya Institute of Management (KIM) has won the first round in its legal battle against the Technical and Vocational Education and Training Authority (TVETA) after the High Court declined to strike out its case challenging the closure of its campuses.
In a ruling delivered on July 9, 2026, Justice William Musyoka dismissed a preliminary objection by the TVET Authority, clearing the way for the institute's judicial review application to proceed to a full hearing.
The dispute stems from a decision by the regulator to revoke KIM's accreditation and order the immediate closure of its institution through a letter dated April 20, 2026.
The TVET Authority argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because KIM had failed to exhaust an alternative dispute resolution mechanism provided under the Technical and Vocational Education and Training Act.
According to the authority, any institution aggrieved by a closure decision ought to first appeal to the Cabinet Secretary within 30 days before approaching the courts.
The regulator further argued that the institute had also violated provisions of the Fair Administrative Action Act by bypassing the statutory appeal process.
However, Justice Musyoka found that the regulator had not demonstrated that it had complied with the legal procedure required before ordering the closure.
The judge observed that under Section 36 of the Technical and Vocational Education and Training Act, the Board must first issue a written notice requiring an institution to rectify any shortcomings before taking the drastic step of closure under Section 37.
"I have not seen, from the material filed by the applicant, any document purporting to be a notice issued under section 36 requiring the applicant to rectify or comply with any standard set by the respondent, prior to the letter of 20th April 2026," the judge ruled.
He further noted that there was no evidence before the court showing that KIM had failed to comply with such a notice before the accreditation was revoked.
"I have equally not seen a notice or letter indicating that there had been a non-compliance with a notice under section 36, by the applicant, before action was taken to close the institution," he added.
The court held that because those facts remained contested, the matter could not be disposed of through a preliminary objection.
Justice Musyoka relied on the long-established legal principle that a preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law based on uncontested facts.
"The two parties are not in agreement on those facts. In the absence of evidence that the notice under section 36 was ever issued, and was not complied with, I would, at this stage, be unable to rule on whether the action under section 37(1) was procedural," he ruled.
He observed that the closure letter issued on April 20 made no reference to any earlier compliance notice having been served on the institute before the closure decision.
"I also notice that the closure was to take effect immediately, and the closure letter was accompanied by a notice to the general public," Justice Musyoka said.
TVETA revoked the accreditation of all KIM campuses while accusing the institution of awarding unaccredited learning programmes. The Authority also claimed the institution was offering and awarding various academic and professional programmes without valid clearances.
According to the Authority, KIM continued to offer unapproved programmes from those certified by the Technical and Vocational Education and Training Curriculum Development, Assessment and Certification Council (TVET CDACC).
The Authority noted that it lacks the mandate to award academic qualifications and revoked the validity of all certificates offered by KIM.
The court further questioned the regulator's argument that KIM ought to have appealed to the Cabinet Secretary before seeking judicial intervention.
Justice Musyoka noted that the relevant provision of the law uses the word "may" rather than "shall", meaning an appeal is optional rather than mandatory.
"The provision, under section 37(2), for an appeal to the Cabinet Secretary, is not in mandatory terms, but in the permissive 'may'," the judge held.
"That does not confine any challenge to the closure to the Cabinet Secretary, for it leaves room for the challenge to be mounted elsewhere."
He held that the present proceedings had been filed under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules and were therefore not governed by the statutory provisions on exhaustion cited by the respondent.
"The Fair Administrative Action Act is not a statute of universal application, to all cases of judicial review," Justice Musyoka ruled.
"These proceedings are not anchored on the Fair Administrative Action Act, but on Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules."
Having found the preliminary objection unmerited, the judge dismissed it and directed the TVET Authority to file its substantive response to KIM's application.
"I overrule and dismiss the same. Let the respondent file its papers in response to the motion," the court ordered.
The case will be mentioned on July 29, 2026, to confirm that the regulator has filed its response and for further directions before the substantive hearing begins.
