Hussein v Kenya School of Law & another (Tribunal Case E006 of 2026) [2026] KELEAT 6 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Judgment)

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: LEGAL EDUCATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: LEAA/E006/2026 MOHAMED ABDUL HUSSEIN VS KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW AND COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION # JUDGMENT ## A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. The Appellant, **MOHAMED ABDUL HUSSEIN,** instituted this appeal before this tribunal against the **Kenya School of Law** as the respondent and **the Council of Legal Education** as interested party, vide a memorandum of appeal (present application) dated 15th January2026, seeking the following orders; * 1. THAT this Honorable Tribunal be pleased to quash and/or set asidethe decisions by the Director/Chief Executive Offer of the Respondent made on the 19th of December, 2025, and 10th of January, 2026; 2. THAT this Honorable Tribunal declares that the Appellant isqualified for admission to the Advocates Training Program by dint of Section 8 (3) (c) of the Legal Education Act, 2012. 3. THAT this Honorable Tribunal be pleased to issue a declarationrecognizing the Appellant's prior learning; 4. THAT this Honorable Tribunal be pleased to issue an ordercompelling the Respondent to admit the Appellant to the Advocates Training Program for the academic year 2026/2027; and * + 1. THAT this Honorable Tribunal be pleased to award costs to theAppellant against the Respondents. 1. The appeal is premised on the following grounds: 1. THAT the Respondent erred in fact and law in denying the Applicantadmission into the Advocates Training Program (ATP) for the year, 2026/2027 on the basis that the Applicant scored lower than the minimum required grades in English and Kiswahili at the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE); * 1. THAT the Respondent erred in fact and law by failing to recognizethe Appellant's prior learning and in turn denying the Applicant admission into the Advocates Training Program (ATP) for the year, 2026/2027; and * 1. THAT the Respondent erred in fact and law by failing to consider theAppellant's appeal on meritorious grounds and consequently denying the Applicant admission into the Advocates Training Program (ATP) for the year, 2026/2027. 2. THAT at the time of enrolling to the Diploma in Law at Mount KenyaUniversity, the Appellant was entitled to progress to the Advocates Training Program. 3. THAT the decision of the Respondent is arbitrary, unreasonable andin violation of principles of natural justice. 4. THAT the Respondent violated the Appellant's right to equaltreatment under the law. 5. THAT the decision by the Respondent violates Appellant's right toeducation as enshrined in Article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 1. The present application was accompanied with a supporting affidavit swornby Mohamed Abdul Hussein on 15th January 2026 where he stated that he attained a mean grade of B- (MINUS) in his KCSE examination, C+(PLUS) in Kiswahili and C (PLAIN) in English, and thereafter enrolled and completed a Diploma in Law Program at Mount Kenya University, an institution accredited by the Interested Party. That upon completion, he was enrolled and successfully completed a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree at the same institution and graduated with a second class, lover division. He further stated that he applied for admission into the Respondent’s Advocate Training Program (ATP) for the academic year 2026/2027 and was rejected vide a letter dated 29th December 2025 for not attaining a B in English or Kiswahili in his KCSE examinations. He further stated that the Respondent failed to consider the alternative pathways that he had taken and that he has a legitimate expectation of enrolling into ATP having successfully completed his Diploma in Law and LLB. 2. The present application together with the accompanying documents wereserved on the Respondent and the Interested party who then filed their responses. 3. The Respondent filed a replying affidavit by Lawrence Ndirangu, Academicservice officer, sworn on 3rd February 2026. In his affidavit, Mr. Ndirangu averred that the Respondent is a state corporation established under Section 3 of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 (Cap 16C) for training persons for the purpose of the Advocates Act (Cap 16). He further contended that admission into the Respondent’s Advocate Training Programme is exclusively governed by Section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012. The Respondent claims that the Appellant was relying on academic progression and prior experience to be admitted for the Advocates Training Programme, yet the Kenya School of Law Act 2012 does not have a provision for academic progression. The Respondent contends that allowing people to join ATP at the school on the basis that they had a previous unrelated degree prior to joining LLB degree would be to circumvent clear provisions of a statute and explicit determination of the Court of Appeal. He further alleges that the question of admission has been settled by the Court of Appeal and that the Appellant is not qualified for admission to ATP and the Respondent was right in declining to admit. 4. The Interested Party filed it replying affidavit by Prof. Busalile, JackMwimali, Chief Executive Officer of the Interested Party, sworn on 19th February 2026. The Interested Party averred that its statutory mandate under the Legal Education Act, Cap 16B, includes establishing standards for legal education and that Kenyan courts have consistently affirmed its regulatory authority in such matters. The Interested Party further deponed that it is in full compliance with the Court of Appeal decision in ***Otinga & Others***, and is currently exercising its mandate through a lawful, participatory rule-making process to develop new ATP regulations. The Interested Party maintained that it is the statutory body best placed to determine whether a candidate's qualifications meet the minimum legal requirements, and that its conduct in developing regulations through stakeholder engagement epitomizes the constitutional values of rule of law, good governance, and transparency. The interested party further recognized that academic progression in the field of law must meet the threshold send by statutory frameworks and interpreted by courts. # **B. SUBMISSION BY PARTIES** ## Appellant’s submissions 1. The Appellant in his written submissions dated 7th March, 2026, claims thatthe Respondent's letter dated 29th December, 2025 declining his admission for the Advocates Training Program (ATP) was unlawful, as it relied on an unconstitutional provision (the Second Schedule of the Kenya School of Law Act) to deny him admission based on his KCSE grades, completely disregarding his hard-earned LLB degree from a recognized university and his right to academic progression. 2. The Appellant identified two issues for determination. 3. On the first issue regarding whether the Appellant qualifies for admission tothe Kenya School of Law, the Appellant submitted that he qualifies under Paragraph 1(a) of the Second Schedule of the Kenya School of Law Act because he holds an LLB degree from Mount Kenya University, a recognized university in Kenya. He argued that the word "OR" connecting paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) must be interpreted disjunctively, meaning the separate secondary school grade requirements under paragraph 1(b) cannot be applied to him. He argued that he is qualified for admission into the Respondent’s ATP programme on career progression as provided for under section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act. He further argued that the Respondent’s action of denying him admission based on a law that has been declared unconstitutional is unlawful. To buttress his position, he relied on several decisions including, ***Odinga & another v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others [2017] KESC 42 (KLR)*; *Republic v Kenya School of Law & Another Ex Parte Kithinji Maseka Semo & Another (2019) eKLR*; *Otinga v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 3 others (Civil Appeal E625 of 2023) [2025] KECA 460 (KLR)*** ; and ***Kibegwa & 8 others v Kenya School of Law,*** ***Council of Legal Education (Interested Party) [2021] KELEAT 187 (KLR)*.** 1. On the second issue relating to whether the Appellant is entitled to costs, he submitted that it is trite law that costs follow events, and that the Respondent's unlawful refusal to admit him to the ATP for the 2026-2027 academic year is what prompted the institution of this suit. To buttress his position, he relied on *Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act* and the judicial decisions in ***David Kiptum Korir v Kenya Commercial Bank & another [2021] eKLR*** as well as ***Morgan Air Cargo Limited v Evrest Enterprises Limited [2014] eKLR*** ## Respondent Submissions 1. The Respondent, in its submissions dated 13th March, 2026, presented four issues before this Tribunal for determination. 2. The First issue raised by the Respondent contends that the Tribunal doesnot have the jurisdiction over a matter that is outside the scope of the Legal Education Act as expressly conferred by Section 31 of the Act and the effect of this limitation of jurisdiction is to render the Tribunal’s role in this matter void, the law cannot countenance a situation where a Tribunal’s powers are not circumscribed by the parent statute. 3. For the Second issue, on whether there was a double standard inadmission qualifications and whether the criteria were discriminatory or justifiable, the Respondent submitted that it is a rule of practice to adhere to the ordinary meaning of words used in legal provisions. The Respondent invited the Tribunal to avoid the consequences of a literal interpretation of the wording of a statute when such an interpretation would lead to a manifest absurdity or to a result that is obnoxious to principles of public policy, in this instance, unfair discrimination. In support of this position, the Respondent cited ***Court of Appeal in NRB Civil Appeal No. E472 of 2021.*** 4. Additionally, the Respondent contends that no legitimate expectation hadbeen created in favor of the Appellant. 5. On whether academic progression is applicable to the Appellant, theRespondent submitted that the Appellant does not qualify to be admitted to the Advocates Training Programme (ATP) by reason of academic progression because the applicable law, which is the Kenya School of Law Act 2012, does not provide for academic progression. The Respondent cited the case **in Civil Appeal E625 of 2023 Stephen Otinga Nikita V The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 3 Others** to support its position. ## Interested Party’s submissions 1. The Interested Party has raised 4 issues in their submissions. 2. On the First issue, the Interested Party submits that they acknowledge thebinding authority of the Court of Appeal's decision in **Otinga case (supra),** which declared Section 16 and the Second Schedule of the Kenya School of Law Act CAP 16C unconstitutional. According to the Interested Party the judgment protected the Appellant's right to be considered without reference to her KCSE and it did not guarantee her admission, nor did it absolve her of the duty to prove she meets the professional and educational standards that lawfully remain. 3. On the second issue on whether the Academic Progression is relevant tothe law, the Tribunal was invited to be guided by the binding precedent of the ***Court of Appeal in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 others (Civil Appeal E472 of 2021) [2022] KECA 1132 (KLR) (21 October 2022).*** In that decision, the Court of Appeal rendered an authoritative interpretation of ***Section 8(3)(c)*** of the ***Legal Education Act,*** which is central to the Appellant's case. 4. On the fourth and final issue submitted by the Interested Party, on theissue of costs, they contend that the award of costs as anchored in section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act is discretional. It was averred that the statute vests the court with full power to determine by whom and to what extent costs are to be paid, and out of what property such costs shall be satisfied. ### C. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 1. The Tribunal has considered the issues raised by both the Parties and hasnarrowed them down to the following issues for determination: - * 1. Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine thisAppeal? 2. Whether the Appellant qualifies for ATP on Academic progression 3. Whether the Respondent acted unreasonably by refusing to admitthe Appellant. 1. ***Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this appeal*** 2. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal to hear and determine appeals emanatingfrom the respondent and interested party is anchored in section 31 of the Legal Education Act. This was confirmed by Majanja, J (as he then was) in **Kenya School of law –Vs- Gachoki & 2 others [ civil appeal E062 of 2022(2024}.** While upholding the Tribunal's jurisdiction, he stated that: **“On my part I do not see any reason to depart from the settled position on jurisdiction. Section 31(1) of the Legal education act grants the Tribunal Jurisdiction to inquire into” ……………. any matter relating to this Act” which is an all –encompassing clause that affirms the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to deal with matters concerning legal education arising not only within the Act itself but also from the Kenya school of law Act under which KSL is guided by and applies the provisions of Legal Education Act”** Emphasis, ours 1. Without belabouring further, this Tribunal has in several of its decisions,held that it has jurisdiction to deal with matters emanating from KSL relating to ATP. Therefore, this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter and therefore, this limb of argument fails. * 1. ***Whether the Appellant qualifies for ATP on Academicprogression*** 1. The appellant in her memorandum of appeal, supporting affidavit andsubmissions, has argued that she qualifies for admission on basis of academic progression under section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act. He has also relied on the **Otinga case (Supra),** to buttress her argument of academic progression and invalidity of section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act. 2. In ***Civil Appeal No 472 of 2022 Kenya School of Law vs. Otene Richard Akomo & 41 others*** the Court of Appeal addressed itself on the issue of academic progression by stating that the progression must be along the lines of studying law and no other disciplines. The Appellant contends that he undertook a diploma in law, and therefore fall squarely within the description of academic progression adopted in the Court of Appeal decision. ### 25. The Tribunal also notes that Section 8 (3) (c) of the Legal Education **Act, 2012** provides for academic progression by requiring the CLE 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. This Honourable tribunal further noted that the Interested party formulated the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations 2016 which recognized career progression as a basis for admission into the Respondent’s ATP. 1. This Tribunal considers that the Legal Education (Accreditation andQuality Assurance) Regulations 2016 were not in operation at the time of the Appellant’s enrollment into his LLB program at Mount Kenya University. However, this Honourable Tribunal considers that **The Council of Legal Education (Accreditation of Legal Education Institutions) Regulations 2009** were and still in operation following the nullification of **the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations 2016.** 2. The Respondent claims that the Appellant does not qualify to be admittedto the Advocates Training Programme (ATP) by reason of academic progression because the applicable law, which is the **Kenya School of Law Act 2012,** does not provide for academic progression. However, this Tribunal has in previous cases considered the decision of the Court of Appeal in the **Otinga Case (supra)** to the extent that the superior court nullified the provisions of section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act. 3. Flowing from this, the Tribunal finds merit in the Appellants argument thatthe Respondent's reliance on the now-invalidated Section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act as the sole basis for denying admission is no longer tenable. 4. The question before this Tribunal therefore, is whether the appellant canbenefit from section 8 (3) (c) of Legal Education Act and what really constitutes academic progression? 5. This Tribunal notes that in **Civil Appeal No 472 of 2022 Kenya School of Law vs. Otene Richard Akomo & 41** others the Court of Appeal addressed itself on the issue of academic progression. The superior court defined progression at paragraph 47 as: ***“Progression is ideally the process of developing or moving gradually towards a more advanced state”*** 1. This Tribunal further notes that in the same case, the superior courtstated that progression for purposes of admission into ATP must be within the legal profession. The court observed that; ***“47 We do not thinks that a degree in aeronautics or diploma in interior design for instance can be termed as progression towards studying law. Indeed, the only closer aspect contemplated is experience and learning of law or related course in law. We therefore hold that such a degree and diploma are not to be categorized as a progression in law whatever kind………”*** 1. In the present appeal, the Tribunal has examined the Appellant’sacademic documents and finds that the Appellant having scored a mean grade of B-(Minus) in his Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) with a C (PLAIN) in English and C+ (PLUS) in Kiswahili, enrolled and completed his Diploma in Law at Mount Kenya University in 2021 (and which institution was accredited to offer the Diploma by the CLE), and subsequently enrolling and completing a Bachelor’s of Law Degree at the same institution in 2025, qualify for the admission to the ATP based on career progression as recognized under that **The Council of Legal Education (Accreditation of Legal Education Institutions) Regulations 2009**. ***III. Whether the Respondent acted unreasonably by refusing to admit the Appellant.*** 1. This Tribunal has seen the Respondent’s letters dated 29th December, 2025 declining the appellant’s application for admission to ATP on the ground that “**… has not met the minimum KCSE requirements…”,** which is reiterated in its submissions**.** It is worth noting that the Tribunal has had an opportunity to interrogate the Appellant’s KCSE certificate where it is evident that the attained a mean grade of B-(Minus) in his Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) with a C (PLAIN) in English and C+ (PLUS) in Kiswahili, 2. Owing to the legal effect of the nullification of section 16 of the KenyaSchool of Law Act which imposes the minimum KCSE requirements, and the finding that he qualifies for admission on career progression on the basis of The Council of Legal Education (Accreditation of Legal Education Institutions) Regulations 2009, this tribunal finds that the Respondent acted illegally. ## D. DISPOSITION 1. That being the case, the appeal succeeds to the extent that Section 16 andthe Second Schedule of the KSL Act that the Respondent relied upon to reject the Appellants application has since been rendered null and void, and unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal in **Otinga case** (Supra). 2. It is hereby ordered: - 1. That the appeal by the Appellant, **MOHAMED ABDUL HUSSEIN**, against the decision dated 29th December, 2025, by Dr. Henry K. Mutai – Director of the Kenya School of Law is allowed, and the decision is hereby quashed. 2. That pursuant to section 35 of the Legal Education Act, 2012 adeclaration is issued that the Appellant is eligible for admission to the Advocates Training Programme by dint of the Second Schedule of The Council of Legal Education (Accreditation of Legal Education Institutions) Regulations 2009and the Respondent is ordered to admit the Appellants, **MOHAMED ABDUL HUSSEIN,** to the Advocates Training Programme forthwith. 3. That each party to bear own costs of the appeal. 4. That a party aggrieved is at liberty to appeal to the High Courtunder section 38 (1) of the Legal Education Act, 2012 on a point of law. It is so ordered by the Legal Education Appeals Tribunal. HON. JULIANA NJIRIRI - CHAIR HON. JOSHUA NGULU- MEMBER HON. FELIX OKETCH - MEMBER HON. MOSES MUNOKO – MEMBER HON. GODANA YATANI – MEMBER DATED AT NAIROBI THIS…15TH ….…..DAY OF….MAY….2026 SIGNED BY/FOR: | | | --- | | **★ THE JUDICIARY OF KENYA ★** **HON. JULIANA WAMAITHA** **NJIRIRI** Legal Education Appeals Tribunal Legal Education Appeals Tribunal Date: 2026-06-05 12:35:59 |