Kenya School of Law v Grace Kathina Wambua

3. A brief history of the dispute is that by its decisions made on 28th November, 2023 and 19th December, 2023, the Appellant herein declined the Respondent’s applications for admission to the Advocates Training Programme (“ATP”) during the 2024-2025 academic year. The decisions were communicated to the Respondent by the Appellant’s Director, Dr. H. K. Mutai. 4. Being aggrieved with the Appellant’s decisions, the Respondent appealed to the Tribunal, which vide the judgement delivered 7th February, 2024 allowed the Respondent’s appeal, rendering itself as follows: a. That the appeal by GRACE KATHINA WAMBUA as against the Respondent’s decisions declining admission to the ATP during the 2024-2025 academic year as communicated by the Respondent by Dr. H.K. Mutai – Director of the Kenya School of Law in the decisions dated 28th November, 2023 and 19th December, 2023 is allowed. b. That the Respondent admits the Appellant to the 2024-2025 ATP forthwith. c. That each party bears its own costs of the appeal. d. That any party aggrieved by this decision is at liberty to appeal to the High Court under Section 38(1) of the Legal Education Act, 2012 on a point of law. 5. The Appellant preferred the instant appeal, being aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the Tribunal. 6. This court issued directions that the appeal be canvassed by way of written submissions and the parties complied by filing their respective submissions. Although the Council of Legal Education (“the CLE”) was joined as an Interested Party, it did not take part in the proceedings both before the Tribunal and in this appeal. 7. In its submissions, the Appellant urged that the Tribunal acted ultra vires its jurisdiction as provided for in the Legal Education Act by hearing and determining matters of admission to the ATP and holding that the Respondent was qualified to be admitted to the programme by virtue of academic progression without placing reliance on the admission requirements under Section 16 as read together with paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012. 8. The Appellant further submitted that the Court of Appeal conclusively addressed the ATP admission criteria in the case of Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 others (Civil Appeal E472 of 2021) [2022] KECA 1132 (KLR) (21 October 2022) (Judgment) and held that the interpretation of the academic qualifications must be taken into account regardless of the university that an applicant who wishes to pursue the ATP went to. 9. In the Appellant’s view, had the Tribunal properly analyzed the matter before it, it ought to have reached the finding that under the Kenya School of Law Act, secondary school qualifications ought to be mandatorily considered for an applicant to join the ATP. As such, the Appellant faulted the Tribunal’s finding that secondary school qualifications, particularly the English and/or Kiswahili grade(s) and the aggregate grade(s) attained in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (“KCSE”) were not necessary for Applicants who sought to join the ATP. 10. In urging its case, the Appellant referred the court to the following passage in Akomo: “ 39. In interpreting Statutes, it is also a requirement that the court looks at both the text and context in order to ascertain the true legislative intent. In Reserve https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19103/eng@2025-07-07 2

page 2 of 13

Bank of India v Peerless General Finance and Investment Co Ltd, 1987 SCR (2) 1 the Supreme Court of India stated thus: “Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the basis of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important… A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place.” 40. On the same principle, Ngcobo, J of the Constitutional Court of South Africa stated in Bato Staff Fishing (PTY) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and others [2004] ZACC 15; 2004(4) SA 490(CC): 2004(7) BCLR 687(CC) that: “The technique of paying attention to context in statutory construction is now required by the Constitution section 39(2). As pointed above, that provision introduces a mandatory requirement to construe every piece of legislation in a manner that promotes the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of rights. 41. It is our view that there is also the need to give a Statute a holistic reading and interpretation in order to ascertain the true legislative intent. This was stated by this court in the case of The Engineers Board of Kenya v Jesse Waweru Wahome & Others Civil Appeal No 240 of 2013 thus: “One of the canons of statutory interpretation is a holistic approach… no provision of any legislation should be treated as ‘stand -alone’ An Act of parliament should be read as a whole, the essence being that a proposition in one part of the Act is by implication modified by another proposition elsewhere in the Act.” 42. It would not make any sense to interpret the section as meaning that two students who score the same mean grade at KCSE and one decides to study at a university outside Kenya and another at a university in Kenya would be treated differently in considering their entry requirements to the ATP, just because one was in the local university thus does not need to prove whether he attained the required score in KCSE or not but subject to the foreign earned degree to KCSE confirmation. This ideally would be negative discrimination and against https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19103/eng@2025-07-07 3

page 3 of 13

the principles of natural justice and goes beyond the spirit of the CLE Act informing the qualifications.” 11. In the Appellant’s view, had the Tribunal properly analyzed the matter before it, it ought to have reached the finding that under the Kenya School of Law Act, secondary school qualifications, particularly the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Examination (“KCSE”) grades ought to be mandatorily considered for an applicant to join the ATP. As such, the Appellant faulted the Tribunal’s finding that KCSE grades were not necessary for applicants, (particularly the Respondent) who sought to join the ATP. 12. The Appellant invited this court to consider the import of the decision of Akomo (supra) in determining the instant appeal. 13. In its further submissions, the Appellant urged that the Tribunal in its judgement failed to consider the resulting absurdity that two applicants to the ATP who have the same exact qualifications would be subjected to two different standards and measures depending on whether they obtained their law degree in Kenya or from a foreign university. 14. The Appellant argued that applying the Tribunal’s decision would mean that an applicant with a law degree from a foreign university with higher qualifications would not be granted admission to the ATP. 15. The Appellant thus proffered the position that there is no justification or explanation for the differential treatment of the two classes of applicants as doing so would be discriminatory against individuals who attended foreign universities. 16. The Appellant urged that the question of the interpretation of the Second Schedule of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012, specifically the use of the word “or” between paragraphs 1(a) and (b) ought not to result in an absurdity. 17. The Appellant further relied on the authority of Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; Kenya Ports Authority & 7 others (Interested Party); Liaison Group (Insurance Brokers) Limited & 3 others ex parte (Judicial Review Application 3A & 30 of 2020 & Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2020 (Consolidated) [2022] KEHC 285 (KLR) (16 March 2022) (Ruling) in which Mativo J (as he then was) stated as follows: “ The Constitution of Kenya provides for the hierarchy of courts in Kenya. At the helm is the Supreme Court followed by the Court of Appeal. This Court falls below the Court of Appeal. The decisions of the Court of Appeal are binding on this Court. The issue of the constitutionality of Section 175 of the PPAD Act has been determined by the Court of Appeal. In light of this, entertain this matter in respect of which the Court of Appeal has pronounced itself, no matter how compelling the arguments placed before it, would be to violate the constitutional judicial hierarchical norm. In this regard, I am guided by the holding in the case of Kenya Hotel Properties Limited v Attorney General & 5 others [2020] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal stated: “Its latest rising is the most baffling of all because the petition filed before the High Court sought strange prayers in that the Court there was being asked to annul, strike out, reverse or rescind a judgment of this Court, its elder sibling. In a system of law that is hierarchical in order, such as ours is, it seems to us that such a thing is quite plainly unheard of and for reasons far greater than sibling rivalry. The Constitution itself clearly delineates and demarcates what the High Court can and cannot do. One of things it cannot do by virtue of Article 165(6) is supervise superior courts. Moreover, under Article 164(3) of https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19103/eng@2025-07-07 4

page 4 of 13

the Constitution, this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the High Court. Its decisions are binding on the High Court and all courts equal and inferior to it. It is therefore quite unthinkable that the High Court could make the orders the appellant sought as against a decision of this Court to quash or annul them, or that it could purport to direct this Court to re-open and re-hear a concluded appeal. We consider this to be a matter of first principles so that the appellant’s submission that the issue pits supremacy of the courts against citizens’ enjoyment of fundamental rights is really misconceived because rights can only be adjudicated upon by properly authorized courts. Any declaration by a court that has no jurisdiction is itself a nullity and amounts to nothing. It matters not how strongly a court feels about a matter, or how impassioned it may feel or how motivated it may be to correct a perceived wrong; without jurisdiction it would be embarking on a hopeless adventure to nowhere.” 18. In concluding, the Appellant took the view that the Tribunal’s judgement went against the doctrine of stare decisis in determining with a contrary position what the Court of Appeal had determined in Akomo. 19. In her submissions, the Respondent went at length to address the issue whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal before it, from which the instant appeal emanates. However, as the issue of jurisdiction was not addressed by the Appellant in its submissions, the same is not one presented for determination in this appeal. I will therefore leave it at that. 20. With respect to the ground argued by the Appellant – the issue of the criteria for admission to the Kenya School of Law for the ATP – the Respondent took the position that the Tribunal properly applied the law on eligibility for admission to the ATP. 21. In urging that she met the requisite qualifications to be admitted to the ATP programme, the Respondent submitted that the criterion under which she satisfied the requirements was that of academic progression, provided for under Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act as read with Regulation 5(1)(c) of the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations 2016. 22. Let us read Section 8(3) and Regulation 5(1)(c): Section 8(3): 8 (3). In carrying out its functions under subsection (2), the Council shall— (a) make Regulations in respect of requirements for the admission of persons seeking to enroll in legal education programmes; (b) establish criteria for the recognition and equation of academic qualifications in legal education; (c) formulate a system for recognizing prior learning and experience in law to facilitate progression in legal education from lower levels of learning to higher levels; (d) establish a system of equivalencies of legal educational qualifications and credit transfers.” Regulation 5(1)(c): 5. Undergraduate Degree Programme https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19103/eng@2025-07-07 5

page 5 of 13

(1) 23. The minimum admission requirements for an undergraduate degree programme in law shall be — (a) a mean grade of C+ (Plus) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education examination or its equivalent with a minimum grade of B Plain in English or Kiswahili; (b) at least three Principal Passes in the Kenya Advanced Certificate of Education examination; 1450 Kenya Subsidiary Legislation, 2016 (c) a degree from a recognised university; or (d) a Credit Pass in a diploma in law examination from an accredited institution. To buttress the point, the Respondent stated that she gained admission to pursue a Bachelor of Laws degree on 6th September, 2017 on the assurance by the CLE, in line with its mandate under the Legal Education Act, that completion of the decree would adequately satisfy the academic requirements to be admitted to the ATP. The Respondent submitted that the CLE’s mandate was well spelt out in the case of Akomo, where the court held that: “ The Council has a duty to regulate how the universities admit students to pursue various cadres of legal education; that is at certificate, diploma and degree levels. That duty must be discharged at the point of entry of the student at the institution offering such courses…. It is to be noted that whereas the Council has no powers to make regulations in respect of requirements for admission of persons seeking to enroll in legal education programmes, it also has the duty to ensure compliance of such regulations at the very point of admission of such persons, at whatever level. Hence, it is upon the Council to ensure that all those enrolled to pursue legal education programmes are duly qualified in law to undertake such studies.” 24. The Respondent proffered the position she had a legitimate expectation, pursuant to the Regulations and as communicated by the CLE vide its letter dated 19th July, 2017, that upon completion of her law degree, she would qualify for gain admission to the ATP. The contents of the letter are reproduced later in this judgement. 25. On legitimate expectation, the Respondent relied on the Supreme Court decision of Communication Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services & 5 others [2014] eKLR in which the court rendered itself as follows: “ Legitimate expectation would arise when a body, by representation or by past practice, has aroused an expectation that is within its power to fulfil. Therefore, for an expectation to be legitimate, it must be founded upon a promise or practice by public authority that is expected to fulfil the expectation.” 26. In her further submissions, the Respondent urged that her degree in law was sufficient to apply the principle of academic progression. She invited the court to be guided by the following passage from Akomo: “ The wording of Part C above is clear as it is, that prior learning and experience in law is what ought to be considered in formulating a system that would see the progression in https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19103/eng@2025-07-07 6

page 6 of 13

legal education…. The only closer aspect contemplated is experience and learning in law culminating in a diploma or related course in law.” 27. Having in mind that the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations 2016 were declared to be void on 30th January, 2018 in Nakuru High Court Petition No. 20 of 2016 Javan Kiche Otieno & another v Council of Legal Education the Respondent placed reliance on the Tribunal’s judgement in the case of Mucheke v Kenya School of Law (Appeal E026 of 2022) [2022] KELEAT 853 (KLR) (16 December 2022) (Judgment) in which it stated thus: “ The Tribunal is well aware that the Regulations were declared unconstitutional on December, 21, 2021, but the declaration was subject to crystallized actions not being affected. In this matter, the Crystallized actions based on the Regulations was the admission of the Appellant to undertake the LL.B. degree in 2018, before the Regulations were invalidated.” 28. Indeed, the decision of Javan Kiche was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal (Musinga, Nambuye & Murgor JJ.A) save that the court clarified that the declaration of invalidity of the Regulations would not apply to or affect actions that had crystallized before such declaration was pronounced. 29. The Respondent further relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Simon v Kenya School of Law; Council of Legal Education (Interested Party) (Appeal E024 of 2023) [2023] KELEAT 381 (KLR) (Civ) (21 July 2023) (Judgment) in which the Tribunal observed as follows: “ 49. The Court of Appeal in the above case not only affirmed the decision of the high court concerning the invalidity of the Regulations, it also limited the retrospective effect of declaration of invalidity such that it would not affect actions already crystallized whilst the expunged law was still in force. The crystallized action in this case would be the admission of the Appellant to bachelor of laws degree programme. 50. The operative date of the declaration of invalidity is 30th January 2018 (being the date of the decision by the High Court as affirmed by the Court of Appeal), on this date, the said Regulations which contained the criteria for admission based on academic progression among others ceased to have had any legal consequence from their inception. This included the set out admission criteria to the various legal education programmes contained in them. 51. For the action to have crystallized, it ought to have been performed before 30th January 2018. The Appellant was admitted in September 2018. The Tribunal therefore finds that his admission was made after the date of the declaration of invalidity of the 2016 Regulations, and his admission was therefore not a crystallized action, unfortunately, he cannot therefore obtain benefit from the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016.” 30. In stating her case further, the Respondent submitted that she successfully demonstrated to the Tribunal that at the time of her admission to pursue a law degree on 6th September, 2017, her rights as an action under Regulation 5(1)(c) of the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations 2016 had crystallized by the fact of such admission 31. The Respondent submitted further that the declaration made by the High Court invalidating the 2016 Regulations could not operate retrospectively to invalidate her rights on the action that had crystallized https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19103/eng@2025-07-07 7

page 7 of 13

upon her admission to pursue a law degree in the year 2017, well before the declaration was made by the High Court. She referred the court to the case of Akomo and Javan Kiche. 32. On the issue, the court held as follows in Akomo: “ We are alive to the fact that the parties relied on the said regulations as they were then in force before the Court of Appeal declared the same to be invalid for want of compliance with the Statutory Instruments Act, 2013 on 21st December, 2021…. But we hasten to add that such invalidation could not apply retrospectively.” 33. The judges observed as follows in Javan Kiche: “ …consequently, it is explicit that a court having declared a piece of legislation or section of an Act to be unconstitutional, that Act or law becomes a nullity from the date of inception or enactment and not from the date of judgement. But it will not be applicable to actions already crystallized whilst the expunged law was still in force.” 34. In concluding, the Respondent stated that the Tribunal reached the correct findings in its judgement and prayed that the appeal be dismissed for want of merit. 35. Having considered the grounds of appeal, the submissions by the parties and the record of the Tribunal, what I discern this court should now determine is the criteria of admission to the ATP that ought to have applied in respect of the Respondent, and whether the Tribunal erred in the criteria that it applied and the findings that it reached on the issue. 36. The ATP admission is generally dictated by Sections 16 and 17 of the Kenya School of Law Act. The said provision of statute states as follows: 16. Admission requirements A person shall not qualify for admission to a course of study at the School, unless that person has met the admission requirements, set out in the Second Schedule for that course. 17. 37. Application for admission (1) Any person who wishes to be admitted to any course of study at the School shall apply in the prescribed form and pay the prescribed application fees. (2) The School shall consider an application submitted under subsection (1) and if it is satisfied that the applicant meets the admission criteria, admit the applicant to the School. It is instructive from the reading of Section 16 of the Act that the same must be considered together with the Second Schedule to the Act. It is not disputed that the particular course for which the Respondent sought to be admitted for was the ATP. Let us read the relevant provisions of the Second Schedule: The Admission requirements will be as follows— (a) Admission Requirements into the Advocates Training Programme (1) A person shall be admitted to the School if— (a) having passed the relevant examination of any recognized university in Kenya, or of any university, university college or other institution prescribed by the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19103/eng@2025-07-07 8

page 8 of 13

Council, holds or becomes eligible for the conferment of the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree of that university, university college or institution; or (b) having passed the relevant examinations of a university, university college or other institutions prescribed by the Council of Legal Education, holds or has become eligible for the conferment of the Bachelor of Laws Degree (LLB) in the grant of that university, university college or other institution — (i) attained a minimum entry requirement for admission to a university in Kenya; and (ii) obtained a minimum grade B (plain) in English Language or Kiswahili and a mean grade of C (plus) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education or its equivalent; and (iii) has sat and passed the pre-Bar examination set by the school. 38. From the record of the Tribunal, the Respondent attained a C+ (plus) in English, a C (plain) in Kiswahili and a mean/aggregate grade of C+ (plus) in KCSE. She proceeded to study for and was awarded a Bachelor of Environmental Studies (Community Development) degree from Kenyatta University on 18th December, 2015. 39. Eager to study law with aspirations of becoming an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Respondent applied to be enrolled at the University of Nairobi for a degree in law and was offered admission vide a letter dated 9th May, 2017 for the course which was to commence on 31st May, 2017 (as per the letter). 40. On 11th July, 2017 the Respondent, in exercise of due diligence, wrote to the CLE seeking to know what the admission requirements to the ATP were. She received a response dated 19th July, 2017, whose contents are reproduced as follows: Date: 19th July, 2017 Ms. Wambua Kathina Grace PO Box 4349 – 00200 NAIROBI Dear Ms. Wambua Admission Requirements To The Ll.b. And The Advocates Training Programme Reference is made to your letter dated 11th July, 2017 inquiring on the admission requirements to the Advocates Training Programme. The minimum admission requirements to the LL.B. degree as a second degree having obtained a prior Bachelor of Environmental Studies degree in 2015 from Kenyatta University, you qualify for admission to the LL.B. and subsequently, upon completion of the LL.B. as per Regulation 5(1)(c) of the Legal Education Regulations, 2016, to admission to the Advocates Training Programme. Council wishes you well in your endeavours. Yours sincerely. [Signed and stamped] https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19103/eng@2025-07-07 9

page 9 of 13

Prof N. Kulundu-Bitonye SECRETARY/CHIEF EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION. 41. Regulation 5(1)(c) of the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance Regulations) 2016 provided as follows: 5. Undergraduate Degree Programme (1) The minimum admission requirement for an undergraduate degree programme in law shall be – (a) a mean grade of C+ (plus) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education Examination or its equivalent with a minimum grade of B plain in English or Kiswahili; (b) at least three Principle Passes in the Kenya Advanced Certificate of Education examination; (c) a degree from a recognized university; or (d) a Credit Pass in a diploma in law examination from an accredited institution. (Underlined emphasis). 42. On the strength of the information from the CLE in the letter above, the Respondent embarked on studying for her law degree on 6th September, 2017 and completed the course. Believing that she had now qualified for the ATP, she applied to be admitted to the ATP. Her application was declined vide the Appellant’s two letters (see paragraph 3 of this judgement) that are the genesis of the dispute. 43. It is to be recalled, as I have stated above, that the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016 that the above letter referred to were later impugned in the judgement of this court (Odero J.) delivered on 30th January, 2018 in the case of Javan Kiche, where the court held that the Regulations did not amount to subsidiary legislation as the same had not been adopted by Parliament as was mandatorily required under Section 14 of the Statutory Instruments Act. On that basis, the court rendered the said Regulations void and unenforceable. 44. I have stated above that the High Court’s findings in Javan Kiche was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal, save that the court made it clear that the declaration of invalidity would not apply to any actions that had crystallized prior to such declaration. 45. Noting that the declaration of invalidity of the Regulations was made by the High Court on 30th January, 2018, no doubt well after the Respondent had commenced her degree in law, the action had crystallized and could not therefore be invalidated by the judgement in Kiche. 46. I hold that position because in Kevin K. Mwiti & others v Kenya School of Law & others [2015] eKLR the court, while noting that there had been several changes to the law applicable in ATP admissions, held that the provisions of law applicable to an applicant are those that were applicable when the applicant commenced his/her degree in law. 47. It then means that the 2016 Regulations (that were later declared invalid) were applicable to the Respondent and the declaration of invalidity did not invalidate her action, which had crystallized by virtue of her admission to study law at the University of Nairobi. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19103/eng@2025-07-07 10

page 10 of 13

48. The Appellant proffers the position that the Respondent did not qualify for the ATP because the Regulations mandatorily required, inter alia, that for one to qualify for the ATP, one must have attained in KCSE a minimum of C+ (plus) aggregate grade and a minimum of B (plain) in English or Kiswahili, under the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act. 49. Let us read the relevant provisions of the Second Schedule: The Admission requirements will be as follows— (a) Admission Requirements into the Advocates Training Programme (1) A person shall be admitted to the School if— (a) having passed the relevant examination of any recognized university in Kenya, or of any university, university college or other institution prescribed by the Council, holds or becomes eligible for the conferment of the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree of that university, university college or institution; or (b) having passed the relevant examinations of a university, university college or other institutions prescribed by the Council of Legal Education, holds or has become eligible for the conferment of the Bachelor of Laws Degree (LLB) in the grant of that university, university college or other institution — (i) attained a minimum entry requirement for admission to a university in Kenya; and (ii) obtained a minimum grade B (plain) in English Language or Kiswahili and a mean grade of C (plus) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education or its equivalent; and (iii) has sat and passed the pre-Bar examination set by the school. (Underlined emphasis). 50. Although the Respondent attained a mean grade of C+ (plus) in KCSE, she admittedly attained a C + (plus) in English and a C plain in Kiswahili. 51. The Appellant thus urged that as the Court of Appeal in the case of Akomo had clearly pronounced itself that a minimum grade of B (plain) in English or Kiswahili languages and a minimum mean grade of C+ (plus) in KCSE, among other qualifications had to be met for an applicant to qualify for admission to the ATP, the Tribunal fell into error in ordering that the Respondent be admitted, yet she did not attain the KCSE grades requisite for the programme. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19103/eng@2025-07-07 11

page 11 of 13

52. However, the Tribunal proceeded to find that the Respondent qualified to be admitted to the ATP under Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act, which provides that the CLE holds the mandate to formulate a system for recognizing prior learning and experience in law to facilitate progression in legal education from lower levels of learning to higher levels, among others. 53. The Tribunal rendered itself as follows: “ 55. The Tribunal has pondered on whether the Appellant would be eligible under Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act, 2012 which empowers the Interested Party to formulate a system for recognizing prior learning and experience in law to facilitate progression in legal education from lower levels of learning to higher levels. 56. It follows therefore that the Appellant had a legitimate expectation to be admitted into the ATP based on her qualifications the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance Requirements) Regulations, 2016.” 54. Recalling that the CLE had vide its letter dated 19th July, 2017 informed, and in my view assured the Respondent, that she qualified to be admitted to the ATP upon successful completion of her degree in law under Regulation 5(1)(c) of the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance Requirements) Regulations, 2016, and further noting that the degree in law would be a second degree, the Respondent had the legitimate expectation under the said Regulations. Notably, the assurance was made to her before she pursued her degree in law. 55. We have seen in the case of Communication Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services & 5 others [2014] eKLR that legitimate expectation arises when a body, by representation or by past practice, has aroused an expectation that is within its power to fulfil. 56. The Respondent’s legitimate expectation was founded on the promise by the CLE, whose mandate included making regulations in respect of requirements for the admission of persons seeking to enrol in legal education programmes and formulating a system of recognizing prior learning and experience in law to facilitate progression in legal education from lower levels of learning to higher levels, that the Respondent would qualify for admission to the ATP once she completed her law degree. 57. It would then appear that the Appellant based its decision to deny the Respondent admission to the ATP under Sections 16 and 17 of the Kenya School of Law Act and the Second Schedule to the Act. That perhaps informed the Appellant’s heavy reliance on the Court of Appeal decision of Akomo (supra) which largely addressed admission qualifications under the two Sections and the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act. 58. The authority is in the premises distinguishable and the same is not relevant to circumstances presented by the present appeal. 59. Having reached the above findings, I find no reason to fault the Tribunal’s findings. The appeal lacks merit and I proceed to dismiss it with the result that I uphold the judgement of the Tribunal. 60. The Appellant shall bear the Respondent’s costs of the appeal. DELIVERED (VIRTUALLY), DATED & SIGNED THIS 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025. JOE M. OMIDO JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19103/eng@2025-07-07 12

page 12 of 13

For Appellant: No Appearance. For Respondent: Ms. Mwangi For Mr. Maingi. Court Assistants: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19103/eng@2025-07-07 13

page 13 of 13