Kamau v Kenya School of Law & another (Tribunal Appeal E031 of 2026) [2026] KELEAT 23 (KLR) (17 April 2026) (Judgment)

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: LEGAL EDUCATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: LEAA/E031/2026 JOSEPH MUNGAI KAMAU VS THE KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW AND COUNCIL OF LEHAL EDUCATION # JUDGMENT **A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND** 1. The Appellant, **JOSEPH MUNGAI KAMAU,** 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 dated 3rd February 2026, seeking the following orders; * 1. THAT this Honourable Tribunal allow the appeal. 2. THAT this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to forthwith set aside thedecision contained in the letter by the Respondent dated 26th January, 2026. 3. THAT a declaration be issued that the Appellant is qualified foradmission into the Advocates Training Program by dint of the Second Schedule (1)(a) of the Kenya School of Law Act. 4. THAT this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to issue a declarationrecognizing the Appellant's prior relevant learning owing to his academic progression. 5. THAT This Honourable Tribunal do issue an order compelling theRespondent to forthwith, admit the Appellant to the Advocates Training Program for the academic year 2026/2027. 6. THAT an order do issue, awarding the costs of this Appeal to theAppellant against the Respondent. 2. The appeal is premised on the following grounds: 1. THAT the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to considerthe applicability of the Appellants prior learning/academic progression and in turn denying the Appellant admission into the Advocates Training Program for the year 2026/2027. 2. THAT the Respondent herein erred in law and in fact in failing toconsider the Appellants Appeal on meritorious grounds and consequently denying the Appellant admission into the Advocates Training Program for the year 2026/2027. 3. THAT the decision of the Respondent through its Director/ChiefExecutive Officer in denying the Appellant an admission to the Advocates Training Programme was based on misrepresentation of the law. 4. The Respondent erred in law and in facts by failing to properlyappreciate that the Appellant undertook and successfully completed a Diploma in Law as a recognized pathway for academic and professional advancement, thereby curing any perceived deficiency at KCSE level. 5. The Respondent acted unreasonably and unfairly in violation ofArticle 47 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the Fair Administrative Action Act, by failing to exercise discretion judiciously and proportionately. 6. The Respondent erred in law and in facts by ignoring binding andpersuasive jurisprudence including ***Otinga v Kenya School of Law, Otinga v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 3 others [2025] KECA 460 (KLR)*** which affirms that alternative academic pathways and progression must be considered on a case-by-case basis. 7. The Respondent erred in law and in facts by failing to give sufficientand intelligible reasons for the rejection, thereby denying the Appellant a fair opportunity to understand and challenge the decision. 8. The Respondents decision offends the principles of legitimateexpectation as the Appellant pursued legal education through approved institutions with the reasonable expectation of progression to the ATP upon successful completion of the LLB degree. 9. The decision is arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and disproportionateand unjustly locks out the Appellant from professional legal training despite demonstrated academic competence. 3. The present application was accompanied with a supporting affidavit swornby Joseph Mungai Kamau on 3rd February 2026 where he stated that he attained a mean grade of C(PLAIN) in his KCSE examination 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 he then applied for admission into the Respondent’s Advocate Training Program (ATP) for the academic year 2026/2027 and was rejected vide a letter dated 2th January 2026 for not attaining a mean grade of C+ 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. 4. The present application together with the accompanying documents wereserved on the Respondent and the Interested party who then filed their responses. 5. The Respondent filed a replying affidavit by Lawrence Ndirangu, Academicservice officer, sworn on 23rd 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. 6. The Interested Party filed it replying affidavit by Prof. Busalile, JackMwimali, Chief Executive Officer of the Interested Party, sworn on 23rd February 026. 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 24th February 2026, he claims that the Respondent’s letter dated 26th January 2026 declining its admission for the Advocates Training Program (ATP) for the Academic year 2026/2027 was unlawful and lacked legal basis because the Respondent invoked Section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act while completely disregarding the Legal Education Act and it accompanying regulations. 2. The Appellant identified three issues for determination. 3. On the first issue regarding the jurisdiction of this Honorable Tribunal, theAppellant submitted that section 31(1) of the Legal Educations Act grants this Tribunal jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals on any matter relating to the Act. To buttress his position, he relied on several decisions including, ***Kenya School of Law v James Muchiri Gachoka & 2Others [2024] KEHC,*** and ***Stephen Otinga v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 3 others [2025].*** 4. On the second issue on whether the Respondent considered his applicationon meritorious grounds, the Appellant stated that the Respondent’s decision of denying him admission based on Section 16(1) of the Kenya School of Law Act without considering section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Educations Act was unlawful. On this, he placed reliance on the case of ***Stephen Otinga v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 3 others [2025].*** 5. On the third issued on whether the Respondent failed to consider theAppellant’s prior learning experience, he stated that section 8(3)(c) expressly recognizes prior learning and therefore the Respondent’s disregard of the same contravenes Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. He placed reliance on the case of ***Kenya School of Law v Njagi* [2018]** **Respondent Submissions** 1. The Respondent, in its submissions, presented four issues before thisTribunal 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 determinethis Appeal? 2. Whether the Appellant qualifies for ATP on Academic progression 3. Whether the Respondent acted unreasonably by refusing toadmit the Appellant. **Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this Appeal?** 1. 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. **Whether the Appellant qualifies for ATP on Academic progression** 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. She has also heavily relied on the **Otinga case (Supra),** to buttress his argument of academic progression. 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 she undertook a diploma in law, and therefore fall squarely within the description of academic progression adopted in the Court of Appeal decision. 3. 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. 4. This 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.** 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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? 8. 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 C(Plain) in his Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) with a C(MINUS) in English and B (PLAIN) in Kiswahili, enrolled and completed his Diploma in Law at Mount Kenya University (and which institution was accredited to offer the Diploma by the CLE), and subsequently enrolling and completing a Bachelor’s of Law Degree at Mount Kenya University 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**. **Whether the Respondent acted unreasonably by refusing to admit the Appellant.** 1. This Tribunal has seen the Respondent’s letters dated 16/12/2025 and21/01/2026 declining the appellant’s application for admission to ATP on the ground that “**… has not met the minimum entry 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 C+ (Plus), C+ (Plus) in English and a BMinus 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 she qualifies for admission on career progression, 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 Appellants, **JOSEPH MUNGAI KAMAU**, against the decision dated 27th January 2026, 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, **JOSEPH MUNGAI KAMAU,** 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 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2026** SIGNED BY/FOR: | | | --- | | **★ THE JUDICIARY OF KENYA ★** **HON. JULIANA WAMAITHA NJIRIRI** **VINCENT GODANA YATANI** **FELIX OTIENO OKETCH** **MOSES SITATI MUNOKO JOSHUA MBINDA NGULU** Legal Education Appeals Tribunal Legal Education Appeals Tribunal Date: 2026-04-21 15:50:21 |