Kemunto v Kenya School of Law (Appeal E023 of 2026) [2026] KELEAT 15 (KLR) (8 May 2026) (Judgment)

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: LEGAL EDUCATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: LEAA/E023/2026 LOURINE BUNDI KEMUNTO VS THE KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW # JUDGMENT **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI** **APPEAL NO. 023 OF 2026** **LOURINE BUNDI KEMUNTO……....………………………………………. APPELLANT -VERSUS-** **THE KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW……………………….………..…………RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** ## A. Introduction and Background 1. The Appellant, **LOURINE BUNDI KEMUNTO**, through a Memorandum of Appeal, dated 28th January 2026, instituted this Appeal against the **KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW** as the Respondent. 2. The Appellant challenges the decisions of the Respondent dated 5th December 2025 and 19th January 2026, rejecting her application of admission to the Advocates Training Programme (ATP) on the ground that she 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; 3. The Appellant seeks the following orders: - 4. That this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to issue a declaration recognizingthe Appellant’s prior learning; 5. That this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to issue a declaration recognizingthe Appellant’s prior learning; 6. That this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to issue an order compelling the Respondent to admit the Appellant to the ATP for the academic year 2026/2027; 1. That a declaration be and is hereby issued that the Appellant is eligible foradmission to the ATP under Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act, 2012; 2. That a declaration be issued that the Respondent’s reliance on KCSE meangrade alone to deny admission is unlawful, unconstitutional and void; 3. That an order of mandamus do issue compelling the Respondent to admitthe Appellant to the ATP forthwith; and g) Spent. 4. The Appeal is premised on several grounds, that the Respondent erred in lawand fact in the following: 1. In denying the Applicant admission into the ATP for the year, 2025/2026 onthe basis that the Applicant scored lower than the minimum required grade at the KCSE; 2. In failing to recognize the Appellant’s prior learning under section 8(3) ( c)of the Legal Education Act, 2012 which mandates the recognition of prior learning and experience in law, thereby unlawfully declining to assess the Appellant’s Diploma in Legal Studies and Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) qualifications under the Recognition or Prior Learning framework and in turn denying the Applicant admission into the ATP for the year, 2026/2027; * 1. By relying on Paragraph 1(b)(ii) of the Second Schedule to the Kenya Schoolof Law Act, a provision which has been declared unconstitutional and null and void by the Court of Appeal; 2. By failing to consider the Appellant’s appeal on meritorious grounds; 3. By failing to appreciate and apply the doctrine of crystallised actions, inthat the Appellant lawfully gained admissions into and completed the Bachelor of Law (LL.B) programme under a valid legal and regulatory framework, and her accrued academic rights cannot be retrospectively defeated by reliance on subsequently invalidated statutory provisions; 4. Violated the Appellant’s legitimate expectation created by the accreditationand approval of her Diploma and LLB qualifications by the Council of Legal Education and Mount Kenya University, and by permitting her to complete the LLB Programme with the expectation of progression to the ATP; * 1. The Respondent’s decision is irrational, unreasonable and procedurallyunfair in violation of Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, in that the Respondent’s Appeal was dismissed through a template response without consideration of the substantive grounds; 2. That the Respondent’s decision is disproportionate, arbitrary and manifestlyunfair in that it elevates the Appellant’s KCSE results obtained over two decades ago above her subsequent higher academic achievements including a Diploma in Legal Studies and a Bachelor of Laws Degree; and * 1. That the Respondent failed to exercise its statutory mandate lawfully andreasonably by fettering its discretion and treating KCSE grades as the sole determinant of eligibility, contrary to the objects and purposes of the Legal Education Act, 2012. 1. The Appeal is accompanied by a Supporting Affidavit and a Further SupportingAffidavit sworn by the Appellant on 28th January 2026 and 24th April 2026, respectively, which regurgitate the grounds set on the face of the Memorandum of Appeal. 2. The Respondent filed its Replying Affidavit dated 16th February 2026, sworn by **Lawrence Ndirangu**, the Officer, Academic Services, at the Respondent institution, and avers 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; * 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; and 2. That the Appellant is not qualified for admission to ATP and the Respondentwas right in declining to admit. ## B. Submissions Appellant’s submissions 8. The Appellant filed her submissions dated 4th March 2026 setting out three issues it commends the Tribunal for determination: What is the effect of the case of **Stephen** **Otinga Nikita v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. E625 of 2023) [2025] KECA 460 (KLR) (Otinga case)** on her case? Should have the Respondent based the admission to the ATP on Section 16, read together with paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule of the Kenya School of Law Act? Should the Appellant be granted admission to the Respondent’s ATP forthwith? 1. On the effect of the **Otinga Case**, the Appellant contends that the Court of Appeal ruled that there is a conflict between section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act and section 16 as read with the second schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, that violates the constitutional principle of rule of law, legal certainty and predictability of the law under Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal to the extent that it nullified the provisions of Section 16 as read with the second schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act; 1. On whether reliance on Section 16 as read with the Second Schedule of theKenya School of Law Act, the Appellant contends that the Respondent was wrong in relying on such a criteria since these sections were declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal on 7 March 2025; 2. As to whether the Appellant was eligible for admission to the ATP, sheinvites the Honourable Tribunal to examine her documents and ascertain that she holds an LLB Degree and Diploma in Law from Mount Kenya University, scored a mean grade of C (plain) and a B (plain) and a B-(minus) in English and Kiswahili respectively, in her KCSE; 1. She contends that the Respondent’s decision is disproportionate, arbitraryand manifestly unfair in that it elevates the Appellant’s KCSE results obtained over two decades ago above her subsequent higher academic achievements including a Diploma in Legal Studies and a Bachelor of Laws degree. She relies on the case of **Satrose Ayuma & 11 Others v Registered Trustees of the Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme & 3 Others [2011] eKLR**, to demonstrate that constitutional rights must be interpreted generously and any limitation must be reasonable and proportionate. She further relies on the case of **Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 Others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 Others [2014] eKLR**, where the Supreme Court elaborated on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, holding that public bodies must honour expectations arising from law, policy, or established practice unless there is a lawful justification to depart; and 2. She further contends that she is eligible for admission on the basis ofacademic progression as a recognized pathway, as has been provided for under Section 8 (3) (a) and (c) of the Legal Education Act, 2012, having attained a Diploma in Law as a prerequisite of admission to the LLB Programme. ## Respondent’s Submissions 1. The Respondent filed its submissions dated 13th March 2026, raising four issues for 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** **[1989] eKLR**, 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; 12. 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 its required by the law to consider applications for admission to the ATP and once satisfied that the applicant is satisfied, admit the applicant to the School. It further submitted that the Appeal essentially asks the Tribunal to grant her 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;** 1. 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; 2. The Respondent also submitted that it created no legitimate expectation forthe Appellant regarding her admission to the ATP; 3. 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; 4. 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; 5. 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 6. Consequently, it prayed that the Tribunal dismisses the appeal with costs, andalso emphasized that this is an appeal that has sought remedies that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant as it is based on faulty interpretation of the law as well as in blatant disregard of decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal. ## C. Analysis and Determination 19. Having considered all the facts, the evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Honourable 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 puts into consideration the sentiments of Nyarangi JA in the celebrated case of, **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. 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 she 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 Section 4 of the Legal Education Act, 2012, establishes the Council of Legal Education, as a body which 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. In several previous cases, before the Honourable Tribunal, which have strikingsimilarities with the present case before us, we have consistently held that this Honourable Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine such matters. See, **Njenga v Kenya School of Law & Another [2025] KELEAT 2 KLR, Alvin Njuguna Njenga v Kenya School of Law & Another (LEEA No. E002 of 2025), Wanjiru v Kenya School of Law & Council of Legal Education (LEEA No. E009 of 2024 [2025] KELEAT 1 eKLR;** 2. From the foregoing, it follows that, the law governing legal education in thecountry places the Respondent under the oversight of the Council of Legal Education. Any decision made by the Respondent can be a subject of review within the established legal regime, including an appeal to this Tribunal. This Tribunal, therefore, does not arrogate itself jurisdiction, as has been submitted by the Respondent, but exercises it as conferred by statute and binding judicial decisions; and 3. We hold that we have no reason and/or justification to deviate from our earlierposition. Consequently, we find that the Respondent’s challenge on jurisdiction is unmerited and is hereby dismissed and we hold that this Honourable Tribunal is well vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine the present appeal. **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, 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 case of **Kenya School of Law v Otene Richard Akomo & 41 Others [2021] KECA 608 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. In considering this case, this Honourable Tribunal in the case of **Caroline Kathure Kiruki v Kenya School of Law & 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 purporting to rely on nullified statutory provisions while assessing whether the Appellant was eligible for admission to the ATP. 2. It is not in contention that in 2018, the Appellant attained a mean grade ofC (plain) with a B (plain) in English and a C+ (plus) in Kiswahili in her KCSE (**Annexture LBK-1).** Subsequently, in 2021, the Appellantenrolled for a Diploma in Law at the Mount Kenya University graduating in July 2021 with a Credit Score **(Annextures LBK-2 and LBK 3(a) and (b))**. In May, 2021, she joined the same university to pursue an LLB Degree graduating in August, 2025 with a Second Class, Lower Division. **(Annextures LBK-4 and LBK (5(a) and (b))**; 3. Upon the Appellant applying to the ATP Programme in the academic year,2026/2027, her application was unsuccessful for the reason that she did not achieve a mean grade of C+ in KCSE; 4. In their pleadings and submissions, the parties advance divergentpositions; the Appellant contends that she meets this criteria and that it was wrong for the Respondent to have subjected her qualifications against Section 16C 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. 5. The question which begs for an answer is whether the Appellant meets thethreshold to be considered for admission to the ATP on the basis of academic progression and which legal framework should have been applied? 6. This Tribunal considers the period of operation of the Legal Education(Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016, Legal Notice No. 15 of 2016. The regulations were gazetted on 6th February 2016 and subsequently declared unconstitutional on 30th January 2018, by the High Court at Nakuru in **Petition No. 20 of 2016 – Javan Kiche Otieno & Another v Council of Legal Education & Another.** 7. 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. From the Appellant’s pleadings, it can be deduced that she was admitted tothe LLB Programme on 19th May 2021; 3. This Honourable Tribunal therefore finds that as at the time the Appellant wasbeing admitted into the LLB Programme in 2021, the governing legal framework was the **Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations 2009 Laws of Kenya,** specifically **Schedule II Section 5 (c);** 4. In considering the regulations applicable, this Honourable Tribunal in the**Caroline Case (Supra)** stated at para 51 that : ***“This Tribunal therefore finds that since the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016 were nullified in 2018, then the Regulations applicable to the appellant are the default Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009 pursuant to section 29 (2) of the KSL Act, 2012…….”*** 1. The Appellant, having joined the LLB Programme in May, 2021, we hold thatthe applicable regulations then were the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009. Regulation 5 states as follows: ***A person shall not be eligible for admission for the Post Graduate Diploma*** ***(Advocate Training Programme) unless that person has –*** 1. ***passed the relevant examination of any recognized university inKenya, he holds or has become eligible for the conferment of the*** ***Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B) of that university;*** 1. ***passed the relevant examinations of a university, university college orother institutions prescribed by the Council, he holds or has become eligible for the conferment of the Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B) in the grant of that university, university college or other institution, had prior to enrolling at that university, university college or other institution –*** ***i. attained a minimum entry requirements for admission to a university in Kenya; and ii. a minimum grade B (plain) in English Language and a mean grade of C (plus) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Examination or its equivalent;*** 1. ***a Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B) from a recognized university andattained a minimum grade of C+ (C plus) in English and a minimum aggregate grade of C (plain) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Examination, holds a higher qualification e.g. "A" levels, "IB", relevant "Diploma", other "undergraduate degree" or has attained a higher degree in Law after the undergraduate studies in the Bachelor of Laws Programme; or*** 2. ***a Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B) from recognized university andattained a minimum grade of C- (C minus) in English and a minimum of an aggregate grade of C- (C minus) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Examination sits and passes the Pre-Bar Examination set by the Council of Legal Education as a pre-condition for admission.*** 3. This Tribunal is tasked with the responsibility of interpreting the import ofSection 5 (c) of these Regulations; 4. It is not in dispute that the Appellant pursued a Diploma in Law, prior to thecommencement of his LLB Degree. Is a Diploma in Law contemplated under Regulation 5 (c) of these Regulations? That is, **"A" levels, "IB", relevant "Diploma", other "undergraduate degree" or has attained a higher degree in Law after the undergraduate studies in the Bachelor of Laws** **Programme’.** The Tribunal is of the considered view that it is; 1. 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 attendant default Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009 as saved under section 48(2)(a) of the Legal Education Act 2012, and section 29 (2) of the KSL Act, 2012; 1. 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 Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009; and 2. 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 Section 5 (c) of the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009. **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. 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. Further, in **Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 Others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 Others (Petition Nos. 14, 14A, 14B & 14C of 2014) [2014] eKLR**, sets out the following emerging principles underpinning legitimate expectation: * 1. there must be an express, clear and unambiguous promise given by apublic authority; 2. the expectation itself must be reasonable; 3. the representation must be one which it was competent and lawful forthe decision-maker to make; and 4. there cannot be a legitimate expectation against clear provisions of thelaw or the Constitution. 2. Having arrived at the conclusion that the Appellant was qualified foradmission into the LLB Programme based on the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009, it is our considered view that she should benefit from the doctrine of legitimate expectation; and 3. From the foregoing, we hold that the application of the doctrine of legitimateexpectation tilts 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, **LOURINE BUNDI KEMUNTO**, against the decision dated **5th December 2025** and as affirmed in an internal appeal on **19th 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** a declaration is issued that the Appellant is eligible for admission to the Advocates Training Programme by dint of Regulation 5(c) of the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009, and the Respondent is ordered to admit the Appellant, **LOURINE BUNDI KEMUNTO**, 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. 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 8TH DAY OF MAY 2026**. # Page **2** of **2** 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: 2026-05-11 10:24:30 |