Kuria v Kenya School of Law & another (Tribunal Appeal E011 of 2026) [2026] KELEAT 14 (KLR) (12 June 2026) (Judgment)

 # REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: LEGAL EDUCATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: LEAA/E011/2026 NGURU PETER KURIA VS K ENYA SCHOOL OF LAW AND COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION JUDGMENT # A. Introduction and Background 1. The Appellant, **NGURU PETER KURIA**, through a Memorandum of Appeal, dated the 1st day of January 2026, brought under a Certificate of Urgency of an even date, instituted this Appeal against the **KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW** as the Respondent and the **COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION**, as the Interested Party; 2. The Appellant challenges the decisions of the Respondent dated 5th December 2025 and 14th 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; 3. The Appellant seeks the following orders: - 1. Allow the Appeal and set aside the decision of the Kenya School of Lawrejecting the Appellant’s application for admission to the ATP; 2. Declare that the Appellant is eligible for admission to the ATP under thedoctrine of academic progression as recognized by law; 3. Order the Kenya School of Law to admit the Appellant to the ATP forthwith or in the next available intake; 1. The Appeal is premised on the following grounds: - 1. That the Respondent erred in fact and in law by failing to recognize, uphold,and apply the doctrine of academic progression as expressly recognized under the Legal Education Act and affirmed by binding judicial precedent; 2. The Respondent acted ultra vires the Legal Education Act, No. 27 of 2012,which establishes a comprehensive framework governing legal education and training in Kenya and recognizes lawful academic progression through accredited institutions, and further, failure to give effect to binding judicial precedent, particularly the decision in **Stephen Nikita Otinga v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. E625 of 2023) [2025] KECA 460 eKLR (the Otinga Case).** The Respondent violated the Appellant’s legitimate expectation, arising from: admission into accredited diploma and degree programmes; continuous academic progression sanction by recognized universities; and successful completion of an LLB programme accredited by the Council of Legal Education; 3. The Respondent’s decision is procedurally unfair, unreasonable, and inviolation of Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the Fair Administrative Action Act, No. 4 of 2015; and * 1. The Respondent failed to appreciate that KCSE requirements are entry-levelthresholds applicable at the initial point of admission into legal education and cannot lawfully operate as permanent or terminal barriers after lawful academic progression has occurred. 1. The Appeal is accompanied by a Supporting Affidavit and a Further SupportingAffidavit sworn by the Appellant on 1st January 2026 and 10th February 2026, respectively, which regurgitate the grounds set out on the face of the Memorandum of Appeal. 2. The Respondent filed its Replying Affidavit dated 3rd 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; 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 5th February 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; * + 1. 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; 2. 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**; 3. It underscores that academic progression in legal education is notautomatic but must comply with statutory and regulatory thresholds; 4. 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; 5. That the Appellant’s qualification cannot be considered as properprogression under the law, as progression has to be relevant to the field of law; 6. Lastly, it is the statutory body mandated to advise on matters relating tolegal education and training in Kenya, and is therefore best placed to determine and confirm whether a candidate’s qualifications satisfy the minimum requirements prescribed by the applicable law at the material time. # B. Submissions Appellant’s submissions 9. The Appellant filed his submissions and further submissions dated 10th February 2026 and 6th April 2026, respectively, setting out four issues it commends the Tribunal for determination: Whether the Legal Education Act establishes academic progression through accredited programmes as the governing principle of legal education in Kenya; Whether reliance on restrictive admission provisions of the Kenya School of Law Act that were declared unconstitutional and invalid can lawfully justify denial of admission; Whether the Respondent’s decision violates the constitutional principles of equality, legitimate expectation, proportionality, and fair administrative action; and, Whether the Tribunal should order admission of the Appellant into the ATP. 1. On academic progression, the Appellant relies on Sections 8 and 19 of theLegal Education Act, which vest the Council of Legal Education Act with authority to accredit university LLB Programmes and ensure that such programmes meet national training standards. He further submits that once a student successfully completes an accredited programme, the doctrine of academic progression dictates that the qualification must be recognized for purposes of professional advancement. The Appellant relies on the case of **Otinga Case (Supra)**, which annulled Section 16 as read with the Second Schedule of the Kenya School of Law Act, for being unconstitutional, hence changing the trajectory of admission to the ATP, and that the binding consequence of this judgment is that admission decisions must now be interpreted and applied consistently with the doctrine of academic progression and statutory accreditation principles; 2. On legitimate expectation, the Appellant submits that since the LLBProgramme was accredited by the Interested Party, that was a representation that the programme meets national professional standards and students enrolled in such accredited programmes acquire a legitimate expectation that successful completion of the programme will enable progression into professional legal training and that denial of admission after completion of accredited training constitutes administrative unfairness and defeats that legitimate expectation; 3. He further submits that the denial of admission has led to violation of hisconstitutional rights; that of equality and non-discrimination, fair administrative action, and, socio-economic rights and access to professional advancement; and 4. Lastly, the Appellant submits that insistence on rigid secondary schoolthresholds long after university graduation is disproportionate, irrational, and inconsistent with the modern regulatory framework recognized by the Court of Appeal. # Respondent’s Submissions 1. The Respondent filed its submissions dated 25th February 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**, 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; 13. 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 for 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;** 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 it submissions dated 5th February 2026. It summarized five 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 the issue on whether academic progression is relevant to the law, theInterested Party submits that the Honourable Tribunal is bound by the clear and unequivocal 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; 18. On whether the Appellant is entitled to costs, the Interested Party submits thatcosts shall be in the discretion of the court; and 19. In conclusion, it submits that there is no remedy available against it forAppellant, since it is the Respondent which is responsible for admission to the ATP, and has the mandate of administrative function on when to advertise, how to admit, and who to admit being the one which made the impugned decision. The Interested Party cannot be faulted in any way since as a regulator, its responsibility is to prescribe the standards for admission. ## C. Analysis and Determination 30. Having considered all the facts, the evidence and the submissions of the parties, 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. **Whether the Appellant can benefit from the doctrine oflegitimate expectation?** 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 associates itself with 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. This being the case, the Tribunal has an obligation to determine its jurisdictionbefore proceeding to consider any other issue; 2. This appeal arises from the Appellant’s denial of admission tothe 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. 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; 2. As we have observed in several matters that we have adjudicated before, westill reiterate that the issue of jurisdiction on matters touching on admission to the Respondent’s institution has been firmly settled by this Honourable Tribunal and superior courts. However, we are still forced, rather reluctantly, to revisit it severally at the instance of the Respondent. 3. 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 the 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. The Interested Party submits that the nullification of these provisions did notentitle the Appellant to automatic admission to the ATP; they must still satisfy all other valid and extant requirements prescribed by the law; 4. 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 ***Otene Case* (Supra),** which firmed up the KCSE qualifications to be considered into the ATP; 45. 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 **Caroline Kathure Kiruki v Kenya School of Law and Council of Legal Education (LEAA/E003/2025),** 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. However, even with this development in mind, this Honourable Tribunal isduty-bound to closely examine the existing legal framework which was in place at the time when the Appellant was being admitted for his LLB Degree *vis-à-vis* his academic qualifications at the time; 3. As per the material placed before us, we note that the Appellant holds thefollowing academic qualifications: A mean grade of C- (Minus) with a D (Plain) in English and a C (Plain) in Kiswahili in his KCSE attained in 1998. Subsequently, in 2009, the Appellantobtained a Diploma in Theology at St. Paul’s University. He later pursued a Diploma in Human Resource Management at the University of Nairobi, which he was awarded on 9th September 2011. He also pursued a Degree in Business Administration (Human Resource Management) at the Kenya Methodist University, graduating in 2014, with Second Class Honours, Upper Division. In the year 2014, the Appellant was admitted at the Mount Kenya University to pursue a LLB Degree, graduating in 2018, with Second Class Honours, Lower Division. He further pursued a Master of Divinity from the Grace Bible Seminary, graduating in 2023. Further, it has been demonstrated through evidence that the Appellant pursued a Master of Business Administration (Human Resource Management) Degree at Kenya Methodist University, graduating on 19th October 2024. Lastly, the Appellant is a Certified Professional Mediator, which he attained in 2024; 4. 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 his 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. 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 his Diploma constitutes the prior learning in law; 5. As a court, our duty is to examine whether the Appellant meets the thresholdto be considered for admission to the ATP on the basis of academic progression and which legal framework should have been applied; 6. The Appellant, having been admitted to the LLB programme in 2014, theoperative legal framework then was the 2009 *Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009,* made under Legal Notice No. 169 of 2009 pursuant to the Council of Legal Education Act, Cap. 16A (hereinafter "the 2009 Regulations"). Those Regulations were preserved upon the repeal of Cap. 16A by the express operation of Section 48(2)(a) of the Legal Education Act, Cap. 16B, which provides that the repeal of the former Act shall not affect any instrument made thereunder, and that every such instrument shall continue in force and have effect as if made under the corresponding provision of Cap. 16B. The 2009 Regulations accordingly retain full legal force as saved subsidiary legislation under Cap. 16B and constituted the applicable framework governing admission to the ATP in 2014; 7. The eligibility criteria for admission to the Post Graduate Diploma (AdvocatesTraining Programme) are prescribed under Paragraph 5 of Part II of the First Schedule to the 2009 Regulations, made under Regulation 4 thereof. Paragraph 5 provides that a person shall not be eligible for admission to the ATP unless that person has — 1. *passed the relevant examination of any recognised university in Kenya andholds or has become eligible for the conferment of the Bachelor of Laws Degree (LLB) of that university;* 2. *passed the relevant examinations of a university, university college orother institution prescribed by the Council, holds or has become eligible for the conferment of the LLB of that institution, and had, prior to enrolling at that institution —* * 1. *attained the minimum entry requirements for admission to auniversity in Kenya; and* 2. *attained a minimum grade of B (plain) in English Language anda mean grade of C+ in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education or its equivalent;* 3. *holds an LLB from a recognised university and attained a minimum gradeof C+ in English and a minimum aggregate grade of C (plain) in the KCSE, and additionally holds a higher qualification such as "A" levels, an International Baccalaureate, a relevant Diploma, another undergraduate degree, or has attained a higher degree in law after undergraduate studies in the LLB programme; or* 4. *holds an LLB from a recognised university and attained a minimum gradeof C- in English and a minimum aggregate grade of C- in the KCSE, and sits and passes the Pre-Bar Examination set by the Council of Legal Education as a precondition for admission.* 8. It is against this criteria that the eligibility of the Appellant must now beassessed. * 1. Under Paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b), the standard direct entry pathwayimplicitly requires cumulatively attaining the minimum entry requirement for admission to a university in Kenya, attainment of a minimum grade of B (plain) in English and a mean grade of C+ (plus) in KCSE. The Appellant attained D (plain) in English and a mean grade of C- (minus) in KCSE, which falls significantly below that threshold; 2. Under Paragraph 5(c), a minimum grade of C+ in English and a meangrade of C (plain) in KCSE is expressly required. In our opinion, the Bachelor of Business Administration (Human Resource Management) satisfies "other undergraduate degree,". However, even if this threshold has been met, the Appellant’s KCSE qualifications are off the target. It is also important to evaluate what constitutes a ‘relevant Diploma’ at this point. Prior to his admission to the LLB Programme the Appellant had pursued a Diploma in Theology from St. Paul’s University (2009) and a Diploma in Human Resource Management at the University of Nairobi (2011). Can these Diplomas be classified as ‘relevant Diplomas’ for the purposes of meeting the threshold for academic progression in this context? The Court of Appeal in the **Otene Case (Supra)**, 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.’** 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.’** Consequently, in light of this decision from the superior court, which binds this Honourable Court, we hold that the Appellant’s Diplomas do not meet the threshold of a ‘relevant Diploma’; and * + 1. Under Paragraph 5(d), a minimum grade of C- in English is prescribedas a precondition to the Pre-Bar Examination route; the Appellant's D (plain) falls below that minimum threshold. 1. From the Appellant’s evidence on record, in as much as we commend him fordemonstrating enviable efforts in pursuing further education in several disciplines, both vertically and horizontally, this Tribunal, sympathizes with him but finds that he does not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed under any limb of Paragraph 5 of the 2009 Regulations. His overall mean grade and the English grade in KCSE automatically disqualify him and this court cannot apply its discretion or cure this anomaly through a purposive interpretation of the regulations. If it does so, it will be engaging in an illegality; and 2. To this extent, we conclude that in as much as the above legal frameworkprovides for academic progression based on prior learning, it is our finding that the Appellant does not meet the minimum academic requirements in the first place to allow him qualify to pursue career progression for admission to an LLB Degree programme. **III 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 not 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 he should not benefit from the doctrine of legitimate expectation; and 3. From the foregoing, we hold that the application of the doctrine of legitimateexpectation cannot favour the Appellant. **D. Disposition.** 1. That being the case, we make the following orders: 1. That the appeal by the Appellant, **NGURU PETER KURIA**, against the decision dated **5th December 2025** and as affirmed in an internal appeal on **14th January 2026** by Dr. Henry K. Mutai – Director of the Kenya School of Law is hereby dismissed. 2. That each party to bear own costs of the appeal. 3. 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. **DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2026**. HON. JULIANA NJIRIRI - **CHAIR** HON. JOSHUA NGULU- **MEMBER** HON. FELIX OKETCH - **MEMBER** HON. MOSES MUNOKO – **MEMBER** HON. GODANA YATANI - **MEMBER** ### 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: 2026-06-17 12:48:53 |