Karira v Council of Legal Education (Appeal E043 of 2026) [2026] KELEAT 8 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Judgment)

 # REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: LEGAL EDUCATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: LEAA/E043/2026 PETER MUHINDI KARIRA VS THE COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION # JUDGMENT ## A. Introduction and Background 1. The Appellant, **PETER MUHINDI KARIRA**, through a Memorandum of Appeal, dated 13 April 2026, instituted this Appeal against the **KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW** as the Respondent and the **COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION**, as the Interested Party; 1. The Appellant challenges the decision of the Respondent dated 29 December 2025, and affirmed on an internal appeal on 13 January 2026, rejecting his application of admission to the Advocates Training Programme (ATP) on the ground that he did not meet the minimum Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) requirements as prescribed under Section 16 as read with the Second Schedule of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012; 1. The Appellant seeks the following orders: - 1. Allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the Kenya School of Lawdeclining his admission to the ATP; 2. Direct the Respondent to admit the Appellant to the ATP for the 2026/2027academic year or the next available intake; 3. Award the costs of the appeal to the Appellant. 2. The Appeal is premised on the following grounds *inter alia*: - 1. **THAT** the Respondent erred in law by basing the impugned decision on **Section 16 and the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012**, which provisions were declared inconsistent with **Section 8(3) of the Legal Education Act, 2012** and therefore inapplicable to the ATP admission criteria by the Court of Appeal in ***Otinga v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of*** ***Education & 3 Others (Civil Appeal E625 of 2023) [2025]; (Otinga Case);*** * 1. **THAT** the Respondent erred in law and in fact by failing to apply the applicable legal framework as declared by the Court of Appeal in ***Otinga Case (Supra)***, namely **Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act, 2012** and **3rd Schedule of the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance)** **Regulations;** * 1. **THAT** the Respondent misdirected itself in law by imposing minimum KCSE grade requirements that are not anchored on any valid or subsisting statutory provision; 2. **THAT** the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to appreciate that the Appellant, having progressed academically from a Diploma in Law to a Bachelor of Laws degree, satisfies the requirements for admission under **Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act, 2012** and the **3rd Schedule of the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations;** 3. **THAT** the Respondent in reaching the impugned decision failed to take into account relevant considerations, including the Appellant’s academic progression and binding judicial precedent, while taking into account irrelevant and unlawful considerations; 4. **THAT** the impugned decision is irrational, unreasonable and procedurally unfair; 5. **THAT** the impugned decision violated the Appellant’s legitimate expectation arising from his compliance with the prescribed academic pathway for admission to the Advocates’ Training Program and the Respondent’s representations; 6. **THAT** the Respondent’s actions amount to unlawful discrimination, as the Appellant was denied admission on the basis of criteria not supported by law and which criteria was applied inconsistently; and 7. **THAT** the decision infringes the Appellant’s right to education under Article 43(1)(f) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, without lawful justification. 1. The Appeal is accompanied by a Supporting Affidavit and a FurtherSupporting Affidavit sworn by the Appellant on 13 April 2026 and 26 May 2026, respectively, which regurgitate the grounds set on the face of the Memorandum of Appeal. 2. The Respondent filed its Replying Affidavit dated 5 June 2026, sworn by**Lawrence Ndirangu**, the Officer, Academic Services, at the Respondent institution, averring the following: 1. That the Respondent is a state corporation established under Section 3 ofthe 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 ATP is exclusively governed by Section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012; * 1. That this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal, as itsjurisdiction is limited to matters arising under the Legal Education Act, 2012; 2. That the Appellant was found ineligible for admission based on theeligibility criteria prescribed under Section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012, read together with Paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule of the Act, as interpreted by the Court of Appeal. Paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012, read with Section 16 of the Act, expressly provides that the minimum admission requirement for the ATP is a KCSE mean grade of C+ (plus) with a minimum grade of B (plain) in either English or Kiswahili, which the Appellant did not attain; and * 1. That the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 does not provide for academicprogression and prior experience as a basis for admission into the ATP, and that allowing people to join ATP at the school on the basis that they had a previous unrelated degree prior to joining LLB degree programme would be to circumvent clear provisions of a statute and explicit determination of the Court of Appeal. 1. The Interested Party filed its response through a Replying Affidavit dated 5 May 2026. The deponent, Prof Busalile Jack Mwimali, the Interested Party’s Chief Executive Officer, averred the following: * 1. That the Interested Party makes the response solely in its capacity asthe regulator of legal education and training in Kenya, with no direct interest in the outcome other than the proper application of the law and the maintenance of professional standards; 2. That it is governed by the Legal Education Act, CAP 16B, which outlinesits statutory mandate which includes establishing and upholding standards for all legal education, including the ATP, and the Kenya School of Law Act, CAP 16C, is one of the frameworks used to carry out this objective; 3. Its mandate under Sections 8 and 21 of the Legal Education Act, CAP16B, includes the responsibility to ensure quality assurance, accreditation, and compliance with prescribed standards across all institutions offering legal education and professional training in Kenya; 4. That its regulatory authority has been affirmed by the Kenyan courts inmatters of legal education and training, including admission and progression standards. That it acknowledges pathways in law education as stipulated under Section 22 of the Legal Education Act, CAP 16B on legal education at certificate, diploma, and degree level, with specific requirements under the Second Schedule outlining core courses to be undertaken, and respects the jurisprudence on academic progression and relies on the case of **Republic v Council of Legal Education & Another ex parte Sabiha Kassamia & Another [2018] eKLR**; 5. It underscores that academic progression in legal education is notautomatic but must comply with statutory and regulatory thresholds; 6. That although Section 22 of the Legal Education Act, CAP 16B, providesfor multiple pathways in legal education, however, it does not abrogate its power to determine equivalency, recognition, and suitability of qualifications for purposes of progression to the ATP; and 7. Lastly, that in exercising its mandate under Section 8 (3) (a) of the LegalEducation Act, CAP 16B, it is in the process of developing regulations to formulate admission requirements to the ATP and the same is undergoing stakeholders’ engagement/participation. **B. Submissions** ## Appellant’s submissions 1. The Appellant filed his submissions dated 26 May 2026 setting out two issues itcommends the Tribunal for determination: Whether this Honourable Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this matter; and whether the Respondent’s decision to deny the Appellant admission to the ATP was erroneous, illegal, and legally untenable? 2. On jurisdiction, the Appellant relies on the provisions of Section 31(1) LegalEducation Act and submits that the dispute falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Tribunal as it is a matter relating to the Legal Education Act, specifically whether the Appellant had met the requirements for admission to the ATP. He relies on the cases: **Republic v Kenya School of Law & 2 Others Ex parte Kgaborone Tsholofelo Wekesa (2012) eKLR** and **Kitsao v Kenya School of Law and Council of Legal Education (Tribunal Case No. 13 of 2023)** **[2023**], to fortify this position; 1. As to whether the Respondent’s decision to deny the Appellant admission tothe ATP was erroneous, illegal, and legally untenable, the Appellant submits that the **Otinga case (supra)** held that the Legal Education Act is the overriding framework for all the legal education in Kenya, including the ATP. That the decision nullified section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act to the extent that it contradicts Section 8(3) of the Legal Education Act and therefore the Appellant cannot apply section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act because the Act is not the governing legal framework; 2. The Appellant further submits that academic progression out to have beenconsidered since it is provided for under the Legal Education Act; 3. The Appellant further submits that having been admitted to the University ofNairobi for the LLB Programme on 26 August 2016, he held a legitimate expectation under the 2016 Regulations that he would progress to the ATP, and having acted to his detriment by completing the degree, his crystallized right must be protected. To support this assertion, he relies on the **Kitsao** **decision (supra)**; ## Respondent’s Submissions 1. The Respondent filed its submissions dated 15 June 2026, raising four issuesfor determination by this Tribunal; 2. On jurisdiction, the Respondent submitted, citing the late Justice Nyarangi in**Owners of Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd**, thatthe question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the court is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it. Where the court lacks jurisdiction, it has no option but to down its tools; 3. The Respondent argued that the denial of the Applicant's admission to the ATPwas based on the provisions of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 and since the Tribunal is established under the Legal Education Act, 2012 and derives its jurisdiction solely from Section 31 of the same Act, it lacks jurisdiction over disputes emanating from the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012. It relies on the case of, **Kenya School of Law v Isaiah Munoru Mucheke, HCCA No. E002/2023.** It further quotes **Law Society of Kenya v Centre for Human Rights and Democracy & 13 Others [2012] eKLR; Bakeries Limited v Rent Restriction Tribunal and Kiriti Raval, HCMCC No. 246 of 1981**; to amplify its assertion on the consequences if a Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter; 17. On the applicable law in admissions to the ATP, the Respondent submitted that the process of admission to the ATP is provided for under Section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act, No. 26 of 2012 and it is required by the law to consider applications for admission to the ATP and once satisfied, admit the applicant to the School. It further submitted that the Appeal essentially asks the Tribunal to grant him admission to the ATP and thereby arrogate the statutory duties of the school. It relies on the case of **Kenya Pipeline Company Limited v Hyosung Ebara Company Limited & 2 Others [2012] eKLR;** 4. On whether there is a double standard in ATP admission qualifications andwhether such a standard is discriminatory or justifiable, the Respondent argued that statutory interpretation must adhere to the ordinary meaning of words and grammatical construction of the statute. The Respondent urged the Tribunal to adopt the golden rule approach to avoid an absurd or unjust outcome. It cited the Court of Appeal in **Nairobi Civil Appeal No. E472 of 2022**, which emphasized that statutory interpretation requires courts to consider both text and context to ascertain true legislative intent; 5. The Respondent also submitted that it created no legitimate expectation forthe Appellant regarding his admission to the ATP; 6. On whether the procedure used to deny the Appellant’s admission was illegaland unreasonable, the Respondent argued that the process used to determine that the Appellant did not qualify for ATP admission was fair and just, guided by Article 47(1) of the Constitution; 7. The Respondent further submitted that the applicable law governingadmission to the ATP, being the Kenya School of Law Act 2012, as amended by Statute Law Miscellaneous Amendment Act (No. 18 of 2014) does not provide for academic progression; 8. It also relied on the **Otinga Case (Supra)** to highlight the position that regulatory bodies set minimum standards and the regulated bodies are obliged to comply with the minimum standards established, but are not barred from setting higher standards themselves; and 9. Consequently, it prayed that the Tribunal dismisses the appeal with costs, andalso emphasized that the Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction over the matter. **The Interested Party’s Submissions** 10. The Interested Party filed its submissions dated 9 June 2026. It summarizedfive issues it considered critical for determination: 11. On what is the precise legal effect of the Court of Appeal’s nullification ofSection 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act by the **Otinga decision (supra)**, it submits that it acknowledges the binding effect of this decision in doing away with the KCSE qualifications as a mandatory qualification as a stand-alone filter for admission to the ATP. However, the authority did not bar it from considering all (other) remaining regulatory requirements for every applicant, and therefore an applicant to the ATP should satisfy all other valid and extant requirements prescribed by law; 12. It submits that the Tribunal’s concern should be whether the Appellantundertook a relevant progression Diploma in Law. It faults the Appellant for not providing the evidence necessary to answer this requirement; 13. It maintains that the Appellant’s legitimate expectation, if any, extended onlyto being assessed without regard to his KCSE and that the expectation has been fulfilled by the very fact that of this Appeal being heard on its merits, postnullification; 14. It asserts that the question before this Tribunal is transformed from, ‘Did theAppellant achieve Grade C+ in KCSE?’ to the more substantive question: ‘Did the Appellant undertake a relevant progression in Diploma in Law?’ It asserts that the Appellant has not provided evidence which responds to the second question in the affirmative; 15. The legal effect of the Court of Appeal’s nullification is purely eliminativeremoving a specific, unjust obstacle but it did not create a new entitlement, nor did it alter the fundamental architecture of legal prerequisites; 16. On whether academic progression is relevant to the law, the Interested Partysubmits that the Honourable Tribunal is bound by the clear and unequivocal of interpretation of Section 8 (3) ( c) of the Legal Education Act, in **Kenya School of Law v Otene Richard Akomo & 41 Others [2021] KECA 608 (KLR) (Otene case),**which establishes the foundational principle that for any prior qualification to constitute relevant ‘progression’ toward legal training, it must be intrinsically and substantively be legal in nature; progression in legal education requires prior legal learning or legal experience; 17. On whether the Interested Party bears any constitutional or statutory liabilityfor the liability actions of the Respondent, it distances itself with the actions of the Respondent and states that the two parties are distinct statutory bodies; and it is only the Respondent which should be challenged on matters of admission to the ATP and therefore the suit against it is fatally defective for misjoinder; and 18. On whether the Appellant is entitled to costs, the Interested Party submits thatcosts shall be in the discretion of the court, and urges the Honourable Tribunal to exercise its discretion appropriately. ### C. Analysis and Determination 1. Having considered all the facts, the evidence and the submissions of theparties, the Tribunal has narrowed down the following issues for determination in this Appeal: - 1. **Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine thisappeal.** 2. **What is the governing legal framework and whether theAppellant is qualified for admission to the ATP on the basis of academic progression?** 3. **Can the Appellant benefit from the doctrine of legitimateexpectation?** 4. **Whether the Appellant is entitled to the Prayers sought?** **I Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal.** 1. The Respondent challenges the jurisdiction of this Honourable Tribunal. Itasserts that ATP admission is guided exclusively by the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 and thus, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction as it derives its powers from the Legal Education Act, 2012. In this regard, the Tribunal concedes to the famous sentiments of Nyarangi JA in **Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR** that***:***- ***“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a Court has no power to make one more step. Where a Court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A Court of law down tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.”*** 1. The Court is also guided by the decision in **Muvokanza Limited v Muri Mwaniki Thige & Kegeni LLP & Another (ELC No. 120 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 2275 (KLR)** where the court stated the following on the question of jurisdiction: ***“ 8. In the instant suit the 1st and 2nd defendant has based his Preliminary Objection on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the Plaintiff’s suit. The issue of jurisdiction is a pure point of law which can determine the matter without having to consider the merits of the case. It will not matter whether the facts of the Plaintiff’s case as outlined are true not because without Jurisdiction this court will not have any powers to determine the case. This is because in any litigation, jurisdiction is central. A court of law cannot validly take any step without jurisdiction. The moment a party in a suit successfully challenges the jurisdiction of the court, the said court must down its tools…”*** 1. Therefore, the Tribunal is obligated to determine its jurisdiction beforeproceeding to consider any other issue; 2. In determining the issue of jurisdiction, the Tribunal considers the roots of thisappeal which undoubtedly arises from the Appellant’s denial of admission to the Respondent’s ATP on the grounds that he did not meet the eligibility criteria under the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012; 3. This Tribunal derives its authority and jurisdiction from Section 31(1) of theLegal Education Act, 2012, which confers upon the Tribunal the mandate to inquire into any matter relating to the Act. It provides as follows: - ***“The Tribunal shall, upon an appeal made to it in writing by any party or a reference made to it by the council or by any committee or officer of the council, on any matter relating to this Act inquire into the matter and make a finding there upon, and notify the parties concerned.”*** 1. Further, Section 8(3) of the Legal Education Act, 2012 mandates the Councilas follows: ***“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;…”*** 1. The case before us involves a blend of disputes arising from both the KenyaSchool of Law Act, 2012 and the Legal Education Act, 2012. The Tribunal takes note that the Interested Party, established under Section 4 of the Legal Education Act, 2012, has a supervisory role over the Respondent, including oversight of its ATP. In **Nabulime Miriam & Others v Council of Legal Education & 5 Others (2016) eKLR**, Justice Odunga held: **“*That the body with the legal mandate to determine the qualification for Admission, registration of Applicants to the Kenya School of Law is the Council but the actual admission of students to the School is to be undertaken by the school. That the body with the legal mandate as between Kenya School of Law, and the Council for Legal Education, to set, supervise or mark Advocate Training Programme examinations is the Council though in this instance, that mandate was delegated to the School by the Council.”*** 1. The Honourable Tribunal finds refuge in the case: **Kenya School of Law v Gachoki & 2 others; Council of Legal Education (Interested Party) (Civil Appeal E062 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 528 (KLR) (Civ) (31 January 2024) (Judgment),** where Justice Majanja(as he then was)held**:** ***“On my part, I do not see any reason to depart from the settled position on jurisdiction. Section 31(1) of*** [***Legal Education Act***](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2012/27) ***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***](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2012/26) ***under which the*** ### KSL is guided by and applies the provisions of the [Legal Education Act](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2012/27).” 1. From the foregoing, it follows that, the law governing legal education in thecountry places the Respondent under the oversight of the Interested Party. Any decision made by the Respondent can be a subject of review within the established legal regime, including an appeal to this Tribunal. As we have held in several matters before, this Honourable Tribunal does not arrogate itself jurisdiction, as has been submitted by the Respondent, but exercises it as conferred by statute and binding judicial decisions; 2. We therefore find that the Respondent’s challenge on jurisdiction is withoutmerit and is hereby dismissed. II **What is the Governing Legal Framework and whether the Appellant is qualified for admission to the Advocates Training Program on the basis of academic progression.** 1. The Tribunal has duly considered the arguments and counter-argumentsadvanced by the parties concerning the eligibility criteria for admission to the ATP, particularly on the basis of academic progression; 2. The Appellant submits that Section 16 and the Second Schedule of the KenyaSchool of Law Act, 2012, which provided for the minimum KCSE qualifications have since been nullified by the **Otinga case (supra)**. However, the Respondent maintains that these provisions are applicable and in fact relied on them to deny the Appellant admission to the ATP; 3. We do acknowledge at the outset that this Tribunal has consistently held thatadmission to the ATP is predicated upon the provisions of Section 16 and the Second Schedule of the Kenya School of Law Act as affirmed in the **Kenya School of Law v Richard *Otene Case* Akomo & 41 Others (Civil Appeal No. E472 of 2021 [2022] KECA 1132 eKLR (Otene Case),** which firmed up the KCSE qualifications to be considered into the ATP; 4. However, while the ***Otene Case* (Supra)** had established a precedent requiring strict compliance with statutory admission criteria, this Honourable Tribunal is bound by the Court of Appeal decision in the **Otinga case** (**Supra**)whichannulled Section 16 and the Second Schedule of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Legal Education Act. In considering this case, this Honourable Tribunal in **Caroline Kathure Kiruki v Kenya School of Law and Council of Legal Education (LEEA No.** **E003 of 2025),** had this to say: **“50… the Court of Appeal having nullified section 16 and second schedule of the KSL Act for being inconsistent with Section 8 (3) of the Legal Education Act and article 27 of the Constitution, the respondent remains exposed. Its mandate to admit students under the impugned Section 16 and Second Schedule is no longer tenable. This Tribunal cannot close its eyes on that principle that though the action to deny admission was valid then, the same cannot be valid since the adjudicative process of the Respondent’s decision was still pending when the decision in the Otinga Case was delivered.”** 1. In light of the decision in the **Otinga Case (Supra)** we hold that the Respondent was manifestly wrong by relying on nullified statutory provisions while assessing whether the Appellant was eligible for admission to the ATP; 2. Hence this Tribunal is bound by the **Otinga Case** and due to the striking similarity of this case with the **Caroline Case (supra)**, we find no reason to deviate from our earlier decisions; 3. The Honourable Tribunal has taken considerable time to review the materialplaced before in establishing the Appellant’s academic qualifications. The Appellant holds the following academic qualifications: a mean grade of C (plain) with a B(minus) in English and a D (plain) in Kiswahili in his KCSE in 2012 (**Annexture PMK-4**). In 2015, the Appellantgraduatedwith aDiploma in Law at Mount Kenya University with Credit I (**Annexture PMK-5**). Subsequently, on 26 August 2016, he was enrolled at the University of Nairobi (**Annexture PMK-6**) to pursue a Bachelor of Laws Degree graduating on 17 December, 2021 with Second Class Honours- Lower Division (**Annextures PMK-7 &8**); 1. In their pleadings and submissions, the parties advance divergentpositions; the Appellant contends that he meets this criteria and that it was wrong for the Respondent to have subjected her qualifications against Section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act which has been declared unconstitutional in the **Otinga Case (Supra)**. On the other hand, the Respondent submits that the Appellant does not qualify for admission to the ATP by reason of academic progression because the applicable law, the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012, as amended by Statute Law Miscellaneous Amendments Act (No. 18 of 2014), does not provide for academic progression. The Interested Party, while appreciating the binding effect of the **Otinga decision (supra)** nullifying Section 16 and the Second Schedule of the Kenya School of Law Act, still faults the Appellant for failing to demonstrate, with clear and verifiable evidence, whether she has pursued a Diploma in Law; 2. In the circumstances, this Honourable Court has a duty to carefully evaluatewhether the Appellant meets the threshold to be considered for admission to the ATP on the basis of academic progression and which legal framework should have been applied? 3. This Tribunal considers the period of operation of the Legal Education(Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016, (the regulations). The regulations were gazetted on 6th February 2016 and subsequently declared unconstitutional on 30th January 2018, by the High Court at Nakuru in **Javan Kiche Otieno & Another v Council of Legal Education & Another (High Court Petition No. 20 of 2026);** 4. The Tribunal stands guided by the Court of Appeal decision in **Javan Kiche Case (Supra)** where at paragraph 47 it was held;- ***“Consequently, it is explicit that a court having declared a piece of legislation or a 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 judgment. But it will not be applicable to actions already crystallized whilst the expunged law was in force"*** 1. Guided by the **Javan Kiche Case (supra**) the Tribunal holds that in applying the doctrine of crystallized action, one must have been admitted into an LLB program based on certain regulations and if those regulations are subsequently declared legally invalid, the actions of individuals who relied on them would be deemed to have crystallized and should not be undone; 2. As can be deduced from the record, the Appellant enrolled for his LLB degreeon 26 August 2016. Beyond doubt, the regulations were in place and therefore his academic qualifications should be subjected to the same, through the doctrine of crystallized action; 3. This Honourable Tribunal therefore finds that as at the time the Appellant wasbeing admitted into the LLB Programme in 2016, the governing legal framework was the **Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016**; 4. The Third schedule, Part II, Regulations 4 and 5, provides for Admissionrequirements to a Diploma Programme and an Undergraduate Degree Programme, respectively, and reads as follows: **4. Diploma Programme** **(1) The minimum admission requirements to a diploma legal education programme shall be—** ## (a) a mean grade of C (Plain) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education examination or its equivalent with at least a C+ (Plus) in English or Kiswahili; 1. **at least one Principal Pass at the Kenya Advanced Certificate ofEducation examination;** 2. **a Pass in a certificate of law course offered at an accredited legaleducation provider; or** 3. **a certificate of experiential learning issued by the Council of LegalEducation.** **5. Undergraduate Degree Programme** **(1) The minimum admission requirements for an undergraduate degree programme in law shall be—** 1. **a mean grade of C+ (Plus) in the Kenya Certificate of SecondaryEducation examination or its equivalent with a minimum grade of B Plain in English or Kiswahili;** 2. **at least three Principal Passes in the Kenya Advanced Certificate of** **Education examination;** 1. **a degree from a recognised university; or** 2. **a Credit Pass in a diploma in law examination from an accredited institution.** 1. It is not in dispute that the Appellant scored a mean grade of C (plain) and a B(minus) in English in his KCSE, which meets the legal threshold provided under Regulation 4 for admission into the Diploma legal education programme, which he graduated with Credit I. On the basis of this Diploma Certificate, he was admitted into the LLB Programme. Under Regulation 5 (d), the minimum admission requirements for an undergraduate degree programme in law shall be **a Credit Pass in a diploma in law examination from an accredited institution.** This Honourable Tribunal is of the considered view that the Appellant meets this minimum legal threshold. 2. This has been fortified in the Court of Appeal in the **Otene Case (Supra)**, which held, **‘…the wording in 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 legal education.’** 1. The Court further held, **‘…we do not think a degree in aeronautics or a diploma in interior design for instance, can be termed as progression towards studying law. Indeed, the only closer aspect contemplated was experience and learning in law culminating in a diploma in law or related course in law.’** 1. In the circumstances and given the unequivocal nullification of Section 16 andthe Second Schedule of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012, the operative legal framework governing the Appellant's case is, without ambiguity, the Legal Education Act, 2012, and Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016; 2. To this extent, we arrive at the conclusion that the above legal regimeprovides for career progression based on prior learning and it is our finding therefore that the Appellant’s application to the ATP ought to have been assessed in accordance with Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act, 2012, and the Third Schedule, Part II, Regulations 4 and 5, Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016; 3. This being the case, for the reasons stated above, and considering the materialplaced before us, and reliance on binding decided authorities, we hold that the Appellant qualifies for admission to the ATP, on basis of academic progression pathway, for meeting the minimum qualifications set out under the Third Schedule, Part II, Regulations 4 and 5, Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016. **IV Can the Appellant benefit from the doctrine of legitimate expectation?** 1. We have considered the facts and the evidence relied upon in this Appeal todetermine whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation has been violated to the disadvantage of the Appellant; 2. Wade and Forsyth in their work, Administrative Law, 10th ed (Pages 446-448), discuss the relevant legal principles on legitimacy of an expectation. For an expectation to be legitimate, it must be founded upon a promise or practice by the public authority, that is said to be bound to fulfil the expectation; 3. We have considered the facts and the evidence relied upon in this Appeal todetermine if the same substantiate how this doctrine has been violated to the disadvantage of the Appellant. Having arrived at the conclusion that the Appellant was qualified for admission into the LLB Programme based on the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016, it is our considered view that he should benefit from the doctrine of legitimate expectation. 4. The Court of Appeal in **Kenya Revenue Authority v Universal Corporation Ltd (2020) eKLR** defined legitimate expectation in the following words: **“a legitimate expectation arises where there is demonstration that: a decision maker led a party affected by the decision to believe that he would receive or retain a benefit or advantage including a benefit that he/ she/ it would be accorded a hearing before the decision was taken; a promise was made to a party by a public body that it would act or not act in a certain manner and which promise was made within the confines of the law; the pubic authority whether by practice or promise committed itself to the legitimate expectation; the representation was clear and unambiguous; the claimant fell within the class of person(s) who were entitled to rely upon the representation(s) made by the public authority; the representation was reasonable and that the claimant relied upon it to its detriment; there was no overriding interest arising from the decision maker's action and representation; the representation was fair in the circumstances of the particular case and that the same arose from actual or ostensible authority of the affected public authority to make the same; the promise related either to a past or future benefit; its main purpose is to challenge the decision maker to demonstrate regularity, predictability and certainty in their dealings with persons likely to be affected by their action in the discharge of their public mandate.”** 1. We therefore hold that the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectationtilts in favour of the Appellant. **D. Disposition.** 1. That being the case, the appeal succeeds to the extent that Section 16 and theSecond Schedule of the KSL Act that the Respondent relied upon to reject the Appellant’s 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, **PETER MUHINDI KARIRA**, against the decisions dated 29 December 2025, and affirmed on an internal appeal on 13 January 2026 by Dr. Henry K. Mutai – Director of the Kenya School of Law is allowed, and the decisions are hereby quashed. 2. That pursuant to **Section 35 of the Legal Education Act, 2012** a declaration is issued that the Appellant is eligible for admission to the Advocates Training Programme by dint of Third Schedule, Part II, Regulations 4 and 5, Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016, and the Respondent is ordered to admit the Appellant **PETER MUHINDI KARIRA**, 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 Court under**Section 38 (1) of the Legal Education Act, 2012** on a point of law. **DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY 2026**. 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** # Page **1** of **19** SIGNED BY/FOR: | | | --- | | **★ THE JUDICIARY OF KENYA ★** **HON. JULIANA WAMAITHA** **NJIRIRI** **FELIX OTIENO OKETCH** **MOSES SITATI MUNOKO JOSHUA MBINDA NGULU** Legal Education Appeals Tribunal Legal Education Appeals Tribunal Date: 2026-07-22 13:00:30 |