[2022] KELEAT 677 (KLR)

Korir v Board of Management Kenya School of Law (Tribunal Appeal E017 of 2022) [2022] KELEAT 677 (KLR) (15 July 2022) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2022] KELEAT 677 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Legal Education Appeals Tribunal

Tribunal Appeal E017 of 2022

R.N Mbanya, Chair, E.Arwa, R.W Kigamwa & S.G. Mureithi, Members

July 15, 2022

Between

Kenneth Kipkoech Korir

Appellant

and

Board of Management Kenya School of Law

Respondent

(Being an appeal against the decision declining admission to the Advocates Training Programme dated 8th February, 2022 and as subsequently affirmed on the 1st April, 2022 as communicated by Dr. Henry K. Mutai the Director/Chief Executive Officer of the Kenya School of Law)

Judgment

A. Introduction. 1. Kenneth Kipkoech Korirthe appellant has by an originating summons filed on the April 19, 2022 sought to challenge the decision of the respondent the Board of Management Kenya School of Law declining his application for admission to the Advocates Training Programme (hereinafter 'ATP') dated February 8, 2022. The appellant did appeal against the decision declining the application to the School which was unsuccessful, based on the communication by the respondent of the April 1, 2022.

2. In his originating summons filed through George Gilbert Advocates, the appellant prays for relief as follows:-b.That a declaration do issue that appellant is qualified having attained the required qualification to the ATP course.c.That a declaration do issue that the respondent and/or any other person acting on its instruction be restrained from refusing to admit the appellant to the ATP and to issue an admission letter.d.That a declaration do issue that the refusal letter dated April 1, 2022 by the respondent be declared null and void.e.That the costs of the appeal be borne by the respondent.

3. The respondent did file a replying affidavit through its Academic Services Manager Mr Fredrick Muhia. The appeal was directed to be disposed of by way of written submissions.

B. The appeal. 4. The appellant sat for the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education in the year 2003 at the RCEA Kuinet Secondary School where he attained a mean grade of a D + (Plus) with grades D (Plain) and C - (Minus) in English and Kiswahili languages respectively. He then proceeded to Seguku Hill College in the Republic of Uganda where he studied and sat for the Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education examinations in the year 2006. In the examined subjects he attained the grades of subsidiaries in General paper, History and Christian Religion with a principal in Kiswahili. He was then admitted to the Law Development Centre in Uganda where he studied a Diploma in Law and attained the grade of a Pass in the year 2009. The appellant then secured admission to the Kampala International University to study a Bachelor of Laws degree which he successfully completed and graduated with Second Class Honours Upper Division in the year 2015.

5. On February 1, 2022 he made what he dubed a late application to the respondent for admission to the Advocates Training Programme. On the February 8, 2022 the respondent through its Director declined the application and informed the appellant as follows:-'Reference is made to your application for admission into the Advocates Training Programme (ATP) at the Kenya School of Law.Its regrettable that your application was not successful for admission due to the following reason (s);Mean grade D+. Thank you.Yours sincerely, Dr Henry K Mutai,Director/Chief Executive Officer.'

6. He appealed against the decision to the School predicating his appeal on the grounds that he had in his undergraduate LLB degree from Kampala International University covered the 16 mandatory core units required under the Council of Legal Education (Accreditation of Legal Institutions) Regulations, 2009 and the Council of Legal Education had on January 31, 2022 duly accredited his degree for purposes of joining the ATP in tandem with the provisions of sections 4 (2) (a) and 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 as read with sections 12 and 13 of the Advocates Act, Cap 16. 7.

7. In the letter by the Council of Legal Education it was stated;'Reference is made to your application for recognition and approval of your LL.B Degree of Kampala International University, Uganda for purposes of section 8 (1) (e) of the Legal Education Act, 2012. The documents submitted reveal that you were admitted at Kampala International University, Uganda in January, 2010 prior to enactment of Legal Education Act, 2012. Furthermore you attained the LL.B Degree on November 16, 2015 which was prior to commencement of the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016. Evidently you attained a mean grade of KCSE D+ (Plus) with D (Plain) in English and C (Minus) in Kiswahili. You also attained one (1) Principal Pass and Three (3) subsidiaries at the Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education (UAEC) qualifications as well as a Diploma in Law (Pass) from the Law Development Centre, Uganda.You did not meet any criteria under the then applicable Legal Notice 170 of 2009 inrespect to admission to the LL.B Degree Programme. However Council notes that having attained the LL.B Degree Qualification, you may be eligible to join the Advocates Training Programme under the then applicable Legal Notice 169 of 2009 of the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009 subject to sitting and passing the Pre- Bar Examination administered by the Kenya School of Law. Please note however, the Kenya School of Law has the sole statutory mandate to determine admissibility to the Pre-Bar and the Advocates Training Programme.Further review of your LL.B Degree qualification from the Kampala International University, Uganda reveals that you covered all the mandatory Sixteen (16) core units under the applicable CLE (Accreditation) Regulations, 2009. In view of the foregoing, Council recognizes and approves your LL.B degree qualification from Kampala International University, Uganda.Kindly note further that your academic requirements do not supersede the provisions of sections 4 (2) (a) and 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act, as relates to admission to the ATP and sections 12 and 13 of the Advocates Act, Cap 16 as relates to admission to the Roll of Advocates in Kenya.'

8. The respondent in addressing the appeal to it on the April 1, 2022 communicated as follows;'Second Appeal for Admissionto the ATP.We acknowledge your letter dated March 30, 2022 on the above subject.Your attention is drawn to part 5 (d) of LN 169/2009 (now repealed) against which your application was reviewed. It is evident that your mean grade of D (Plus) and English grade of D (Plain) fails short of the minimum stipulated grades for eligibility to sit the Pre-Bar examination. As a consequence, your appeal is unsuccessful.Thank you. Yours sincerely,Dr Henry K MutaiDirector/Chief Executive Officer.'

C. The response to the appeal. 9. The respondent in opposition to the appeal states that matters of admission to the Advocates Training Programme were prior to the enactment of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 exclusively provided for under the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations), 2009 being Legal Notice no 169 of 2009. It contends that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as it is limited to matters that relate to the Legal Education Act, 2012. Further, the said Act cannot apply retrospectively.

10. The Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009 Legal Notice no 169 of 2009 do not have provisions for academic progression as contemplated by the appellant. The respondent being cognizant of the fact that appellant had secured admission to LL.B degree Programme in 2009 prior to the enactment of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 did not consider the application to the ATP based on it.

D. The submissions by parties. 11. The appellant submits through his advocates that admissibility to the ATP is a matter for the Council of Legal Education as a supervisor of legal education in Kenya in accordance with section 8 (1) (c) and (e) of the Legal Education Act, 2012. It is within its powers to recognize and approve qualifications obtained outside Kenya for purposes of admission to the Roll of Advocates as is the case with the appellant. The appellant ought to be admitted to the Programme having been cleared by the Council of Legal Education. The appellant relies in the decision inLeonard Kipkurui Sang v Council of Legal Education & Another, (2020) eKLR in which it was held;'The question of the applicant’s admissibility or otherwise into the ATP is by law exclusively the mandate for the 2nd respondent with the 1st respondent having no role to play at all. By basing its decision to deny the petitioner the necessary clearance on erroneous basis that the petitioner lacked the requisite admissibility qualification for LL.B is unlawful and ultravires since the 1st respondent relied on powers that it does not have at all.'

12. The appellant’s Advocate further contends that his client was denied admission based on section 1 (a) of the second schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 without having regard to section 1 (b) thereof. He relies on the decision in Kihara Mercy Wairimu & 7 Others v Kenya School of Law & 4 Others, (2019) eKLR in which it was held;'Under the second schedule of 1 (a) of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 it is clearly prescribed the admission requirements into the Advocates Training Programme.The schedule does not lock out those who have alternative qualifications from being eligible for the admission to the Programme.'

13. On the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the appellant submits that it is vested with same by dint of section 31 of the Legal Education Act, 2012. The issue before the Tribunal being one that is based on the rejection letters issued by the respondent on April 8, 2022 and April 1, 2022. The appellant winds up by insisting that he well qualifies for admission to the ATP by dint of section 1 (b) of the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012.

14. The respondent submits that the Tribunal is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as it cannot apply its establishing law retrospectively. The respondent relies in the decision in Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others, (2012) eKLR in which the Supreme Court pronounced itself as follows;'As for non-criminal legislation, the general rule is that all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory which relate only to matters of procedure or evidence are prima - facie prospective, and retrospective effect is not to be given to them unless, by express words or necessary implication it appears that this was the intention of the legislature.'

15. The Supreme Court further emphasized as follows;'A court’s jurisdiction flows from either theConstitution or legislation or both. Thus, a court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by theConstitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by the law.'

16. It submits that the appeal before the Tribunal relates to the provisions of the Council of Legal Education Act, 1995 and which was repealed by the Legal Education Act, 2012. The repealed statute did not have a provision for the Tribunal. Further, the establishing the law of the Tribunal by dint of section 31 (1) therein limits it to dealing with matters relating to the Act. The appeal herein did not arise from a matter in the said Act.

17. On the decision to deny the appellant admission, it is submitted that prior to January, 2013 the law governing admissions to the ATP was the Council of Legal Education (Accreditation) Regulations, 2009 and Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009. The Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 was enacted and came into force on January 15, 2013. The said law however had no transitional provision. The High Court in Kevin Mwiti & Others v Kenya School of Law & Others, (2015) eKLR addressed the issue by finding that all the students who had been admitted to pursue the LL.B degree prior to the enactment of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 could join the ATP based on the admission criteria before the enactment of the said Act. The appellant was thus bound by the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009 which in the first schedule stated at regulation 5 as follows;'(a)Passed the relevant examination of any recognized university in Kenya, he holds or has become eligible for the conferment of the Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B) of that university;b.Passed the relevant examinations of a university, university college or other 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 a that university, university college or other institution –i.Attained a minimum entry requirements for admission to a university in Kenya; andii.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;b.A Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B) from a recognized university and attained 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; orc.A Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B) from recognized university and attained 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.'

18. The appellant’s qualification of a mean grade of a D + (Plus) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education denied him an opportunity to qualify under the said Regulations. He could not even qualify for the Pre-Bar examinations under 5 (d) as he did not meet the minimum grade of a C - Minus indicated therein.

19. The respondent finally concluded by submitting that legitimate expectation was not applicable to the appellant. The decision to deny the appellant admission was procedurally proper. It relied on the decision in Jemimah Nyambura Mwangi v Kenya School of Law, (2022) eKLR in which Justice JA Makau upheld the decision of the respondent declining admission to the Advocates Training Programme.

E. Analysis and determination. i. Jurisdiction. 20. The Tribunal will first address its jurisdiction to entertain the appeal based on the guidelines in Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' v Caltex Oil Kenya Limited, (1989) KLR 1 in which Justice Nyarangi JA as he then was held;'By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a court has to decide matters that are before it or take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by the statute, charter, or commission under which the court is constituted and may be extended or restricted by the like means. If no restriction or limit is imposed the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind and nature of the actions and matters of which the particular court has cognisance, or as to the area over which the jurisdiction shall extend, or it may partake both of these characteristics. If the jurisdiction of an inferior court or tribunal (including an arbitrator) depends on the existence of a particular state of facts, the court or tribunal must inquire into the existence of the facts in order to decide whether it has jurisdiction; but, except where the court or tribunal has been given power to determine conclusively whether the facts exist.'

21. In this appeal the respondent and the Council of Legal Education acknowledge that the admissibility of the appellant to the ATP is to be considered based on the Council of Legal Education, Cap 16A (repealed) and the subsidiary legislation made there under being the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009 being Legal Notice no 169 of 2009 and the Council of Legal Education (Accreditation) Regulations, 2009. The statute in issue was repealed by the Legal Education Act, 2012 which also established this Tribunal. The latter statute in the course of the repeal provides for transition and saving in sections 48 and 49 therein. In 48 (2) (a) it is provided;'Notwithstanding the repeal of the Council of Legal Education Act, 1995 -(a)The repeal shall not affect any instrument made or any other thing done under the former Act and every such instrument or thing shall continue in force and shall, so far as it would have been made or done under this Act, have effect as if made or done under the corresponding enactment of this Act.'

22. While in section 49 (1) (a) it is provided;'(1)Subject to subsection (2) upon the coming into operation of this Act—(a)Every agreement, whether in writing or not, and every deed, bond or other instrument to which the former Council was a party or which affected the former Council, and whether or not of such a nature that the rights, liabilities and obligations thereunder could be assigned, shall have effect as if the Council were a party thereto or affected thereby instead of the former Council, and every reference therein to the former Council substituted in respect of anything to be done on or after such date of coming into operation to refer to the Council;'

23. With the said provisions, the Regulations made under the repealed Act are instruments in the Legal Education Act, 2012 and are amenable for consideration by the Tribunal.

24. Had the Legislature intended to exclude the Tribunal from inquiring into appeals on matters that arose from the Regulations made before its establishment it would have by express stipulation so provided. What indeed can be discerned from the language of the enactment is that it confers upon the Tribunal by dint of section 31 therein the jurisdiction to deal with any matters under the Act. Thus, the application or otherwise of the Regulations made under the repealed Act are now matters under the Act. The Tribunal cannot be said to have acted retrospectively in entertaining this appeal. For ease of reference section 31 (1) of the Act provides;'(1)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 thereupon, and notify the parties concerned.

25. It is clear that an express conferment of jurisdiction exists in this matter as opposed to being an implication since the wording of section 31 (1) seeks to cast the net as wide as possible by giving the Tribunal powers to deal with any matters arising under the Act. Based on the authority in Republic v Rent Restriction Tribunal Ex-parte: Mayfair Bakeries Limited & Another, (1982) eKLR the Tribunal is well empowered to deal with the appeal. In the said matter it was stated;'Testing whether a statute has conferred jurisdiction on an inferior court or Tribunal … The wording must be strictly construed; it must in fact be an express conferment and not a matter of implication and that a Tribunal is a creature of statute and has only such jurisdiction as has been specifically conferred upon it by the statute.'

26. The Tribunal is further fortified in its finding by the fact that when an Act is repealed the subsidiary legislation remains in force unless an express stipulation is made revoking the subsidiary legislation or the statutory instrument. The Tribunal is well minded in its finding based on section 24 of theInterpretation and General Provisions Act, Cap 2 which provides;'Where an Act or part of an Act is amended, subsidiary legislation issued under or made in virtue thereof shall, unless a contrary intention appears, remain in force so far as it is not inconsistent with the repealing Act until it has been revoked or repealed by subsidiary legislation issued or made under the provisions of the repealing Act, and shall be deemed to have been made thereunder.'

27. The Tribunal further derives guidance from the authority in Republic v Kenya School of Law & Another Ex Parte: Ibrahim Maalim Abdullahi, (2014) eKLR in which Justice Odunga dealt with a matter similar to that before the Tribunal and observed;'That a subsidiary legislation is an instrument is not in doubt. It is trite under section 24 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, Cap 2 Laws of Kenya that even in cases where an Act or part of an Act is repealed, legislation under subsidiary legislation under or made by virtue thereof, unless contrary intention appears remains in force, so far as it is not inconsistent with the repealed Act, until it has been revoked or repealed by subsidiary legislation issued or made under the provisions of the repealing Act, and shall be deemed for all purposes to have been made thereunder.'

28. Finally, regulation 5 (d) of the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009 being Legal Notice no 169 of 2009 provides that it is the Council of Legal Education which is to set the pre-bar examination which if the appellant is eligible to admission thereunder is to sit. This clearly brings the appeal within the realm of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as it is a matter involving the Council of Legal Education.

ii. The appeal. 29. The impugned decision as communicated by the respondent found that the appellant was unqualified for admission to the ATP since he failed to meet the minimum Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education grades stipulated in regulation 5 (d) of the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009 being Legal Notice no 169 of 2009. By the said regulation the appellant was required to have attained a Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B) from a recognized university and attained a minimum grade of C - (minus) in English and a minimum of an aggregate grade of 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. The Council of Legal Education in it’s letter to the appellant well recognized and approved his LL.B degree from the Kampala University however, contrary to the contention of the appellant the said Council never unequivocally confirmed his eligibility for admission to the ATP as can be deciphered from the letter of January 31, 2022.

30. The Tribunal has also considered the provision of regulation 5(d)Aforesaid and finds that the appellant’s Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education examinations result of a mean grade of D + (plus) just as the respondent concluded do not meet the minimum grade of C - (minus) to render him eligible under limb 5 (d) of the Regulations in issue as they were in force then. The respondent’s decision cannot thus be faulted in declining his application to the Advocates Training Programme. The Tribunal is well guided by the authority in Jemimah Nyambura Mwangi v Kenya School of Law, (2022) eKLR in which Justice JA Makau held;'20. The Petitioner herein Scored a D + (D plus) in KCSE and further attained three principal passes at 'A' Level in the Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education (UACE) before being admitted to Moi University for her undergraduate. It is clear from the provisions cited above that she had not qualified to undertake the programme even at the undergraduate level or college level. Further, the fact that the Council for Legal Education cleared her did not negate the fact that she did not meet the requirements set therein.'

31. The Tribunal finds the appellant’s submission that the applicable law in determining his eligibility to the ATP as being the section 1 (b) of the second schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 to be misplaced. The said law was not in force when he secured admission to the LL.B degree at the Kampala International University in the year 2009. It is clear that to apply the said law in considering his eligibility to the ATP will definitely defy the concept of retrospective application of the law. The Tribunal adopts the position as postulated in the decision in Jemimah Nyambura Mwangi supra in which Justice JA Makau held;'14. Upon perusal of the letter addressed to the petitioner by the Council of Legal education clearing her to be admitted to the Kenya School of Law and the letter addressed to her from the respondent, it is clear that both the Council of Legal Education and the respondent made reference to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012. The respondent has however indicated that this was a mistake and miscommunication on its part and that it did not use the said Act. I do agree that the law applicable in this matter should have been the law before the enactment of the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 as the law does not operate retrospectively as provided for under Section 23 (3) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act. The case of Kevin Mwiti & others v Kenya School of Law, Council of Legal Education & Attorney General (Petition No 377 of 2015) affirmed that position.

32. The Tribunal further finds that to adopt the submission of the appellant on the applicable law as being section 1 (b) of the second schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 it will run a foul the established and well settled law that the point of checking for admission requirements to the undergraduate LL.B degree is at the point of admission to the University as opposed to when one makes an application to the ATP. In this matter as already discussed the appellant secured admission to the LL.B degree in the year 2009 before the said statute was enacted. The Tribunal is so guided by the authority in Robert Uri Dabaly Jimma v Kenya School of Law & Another, (2020) eKLR by Justice Antony Mrima in which he held;'86. It can, therefore, be only the case that the Council has a duty to regulate how the universities admit students to pursue various cadres of legal education; that is at the certificate, diploma and degree levels. That duty must be discharged at the point of entry of the student at the institution offering such courses. A legal education provider, must, at the direction and supervision of the Council, be able to determine whether a student is qualified to pursue studies in law at the time the student applies to join the institution, that is a college or a university.'

33. On legitimate expectation, the Tribunal finds that it will be contrary to the law to grant admission to the appellant when his qualifications fail to meet the basic requirements set in the law. A legitimate expectation ought not to run contrary to the law. The appellant also failed to establish the other facets for the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation as settled by the Supreme Court inCommunications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 Others, (2014) eKLR in which it was stated as follows;'(269)The emerging principles may be succinctly set out as follows:a.There must be an express, clear and unambiguous promise given by a public authority;b.The expectation itself must be reasonable;c.The representation must be one which it was competent and lawful for the decision-maker to make; and(d)There cannot be a legitimate expectation against clear provisions of the law or theConstitution.'

34. The Tribunal is also guided by the decision inIan Lutta v Kenya School of Law, (2020) eKLR in which Justice Weldon Korir held;'This Court cannot in the guise of enforcing the Petitioner’s legitimate expectation command the Respondent to act in contravention of the law.Legitimate expectation is only useful where the acts done were done within the law.'

35. The Tribunal finds that no competent and lawful promise based on the state of the law on admission to the ATP was proved to have been made by a public officer authorized to make the same. The denial of admission to the ATP was based on a correct exposition of the state of the law by the respondent. The Tribunal is guided by the authority in Simon Krypton Letambui v Kenya School Law & Another, (2018) eKLRin which Justice Winfrida Okwany held;'In the instant case, I find that there was no express, clear and unambiguous promise or representation made to the petitioner that he will be admitted to the 1st respondent school as such a promise could only be based on the applicable law. In the instant case, as I have already found in this judgment, the petitioner’s right to be admitted to the 1st respondent was subject to the 1st respondents’ rules and regulations. Courts have severally held that they will not intervene in the activities of academic institutions where such activities are governed by the respective institution’s rules and regulations.'

36. The appellant well set out his journey from when he left secondary school in Kenya and progressed through ‘A’ levels in the Republic of Uganda, to Diploma in Law and eventually graduated with an LL.B degree. The respondent denied in it’s response that academic progression was provided for in the law. The Tribunal finds that the assertion by the respondent is not correct since regulation 5 (c) of the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009 provides for progression in a legion of manners in the following terms;'A Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B) from a recognized university and attained 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;'

37. However, the Tribunal finds in this appeal that the appellant could not benefit from the said options as he failed to attain the minimum Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education grades stipulated in the said Regulations.

F. Disposition.*The Tribunal ultimately now decrees as follows:-a.That the appeal by Kenneth Kipkoech Korir seeking to impugn the decision of the respondent declining his application for admission to the Advocates Training Programme dated February 8, 2022 and as subsequently affirmed on appeal on the April 1, 2022 is dismissed.b.That each party to bear own costs of the appeal.c.That any party aggrieved has the 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.

DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH. DAY OF JULY, 2022. ROSE NJOROGE – MBANYA - (MRS.) - CHAIRPERSONEUNICE ARWA - (MRS.) - MEMBERRAPHAEL WAMBUA KIGAMWA (MR.) – MEMBERSTEPHEN GITONGA MUREITHI (MR.) - MEMBERI Certify this is a true copy of the original judgment of the Tribunal.GILBERT ONYANGO - REGISTRAR