By Joel Katana
KISUMU, 04/11/2025 — The Court of Appeal in Kisumu has upheld a decision by Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology (MMUST) to withdraw the title of “Professor” from one of its senior lecturers, ruling that the academic did not meet the qualifications required for the prestigious rank.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Asike-Makhandia, Hannah Okwengu Omondi, and Aggrey Muchelule dismissed an appeal by Dr. Charles Chunge, who had accused the university of unlawfully and unfairly stripping him of the title of “Professor” two years after his appointment as Executive Dean of the School of Medicine.
Dr. Chunge had been offered the position in July 2015 following an interview, and his appointment letter referred to him as “Professor Chunge.” However, two years later, in March 2017, MMUST wrote to him clarifying that the use of the title “Professor” in his appointment letter had been an error. The university insisted that he had only been hired as Executive Dean and not as a professor, and invited him to submit his credentials for consideration should he wish to be appointed to that academic rank.
The correction sparked a prolonged legal battle that ended up before the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) in Kisumu. Dr. Chunge argued that his appointment as Executive Dean automatically conferred upon him the title of professor, as the job advertisement had stated that the successful candidate “would be appointed a professor at the same time, if qualified.”
He accused the university of violating his employment contract, discrimination, and constructive dismissal, and sought a declaration reinstating him as professor, a permanent injunction restraining the university from referring to him by any other title, and damages for breach of contract.
However, the Employment Court dismissed his claim in 2021, with Justice S. Radido ruling that the university had acted within the law. The judge found that while the job advertisement provided for the possibility of dual appointment, the claimant had not demonstrated that he met the minimum academic and research requirements for a professorship.
Justice Radido noted that to qualify as a professor under the Commission for University Education’s 2014 Harmonised Criteria and Guidelines, a candidate must have extensive research experience, proven innovation, supervision of at least four postgraduate students—including one doctoral candidate—and evidence of having attracted research funding.
“The claimant did not attempt to lay any evidential foundation before the Court as to the qualifications one required to be appointed as a professor in 2015,” Justice Radido stated in his judgment. “The Court agrees with the University that the use of the term professor in the offer letter was in error, and it was rightly corrected.”
Unhappy with that verdict, Dr. Chunge appealed, arguing that the trial judge was biased and had effectively rewritten his employment contract. His counsel, Mrs. Chunge, told the appellate court that the initial letter of appointment had “formally and effectively conferred” the professorship, and that withdrawing the title was an unlawful alteration of his contract.
But the appellate judges dismissed those arguments, siding once again with the university. The bench ruled that the offer letter clearly appointed him as Executive Dean, and that the salutation “Dear Prof. Chunge” did not amount to a formal conferment of the professorial rank.
“The appointment of professor of a university is such an important appointment that cannot be by implication or based on a salutation,” the judges said. “Looking at the criteria and guidelines in place, appointing a professor with the necessary qualifications was crucial for maintaining academic standards.”
The court added that when given an opportunity to prove his eligibility, the appellant declined to present his qualifications and instead questioned the legitimacy of the committee that had been set up to assess him.
“A court of law cannot be the entity that would be used to confer the position of professor to an academic who would otherwise not be qualified,” the judges observed.
In dismissing the appeal, the bench concluded that there was “no stripping of position or variation of the terms of employment,” since the correction was merely to rectify an administrative error.
The court ordered Dr. Chunge to pay costs of the appeal to the university.