Lekeni v Kenya School of Law & another (Tribunal Appeal E047 of 2026) [2026] KELEAT 17 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Judgment)

Lekeni v Kenya School of Law & another (Tribunal Appeal E047 of 2026) [2026] KELEAT 17 (KLR) (28 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KELEAT 17 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Legal Education Appeals Tribunal Tribunal Appeal E047 of 2026 J Njiriri, Chair, F Oketch, J Ngulu, M Munoko & Y Godana, Members July 28, 2026 Between Winnie Lasoi Lekeni Appellant and Kenya School of Law 1st Respondent The Council of Legal Education 2nd Respondent Judgment A. Introduction and Background 1.This Appellant Winnie Lasoi Lekeni lodged this appeal against the decision of the Kenya School of Law (the Respondent) declining her admission to the Advocates Training Programme (ATP) for the 2026/2027 academic year. The Council of Legal Education is joined as the Interested Party. 2.The material facts giving rise to this appeal are largely uncontested. 3.The Appellant sat the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education examinationand thereafter pursued legal studies through the academic progression pathway. She first obtained a Diploma in Law from an accredited institution before enrolling for and completing the Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) degree at Mount Kenya University, a recognised legal education provider accredited by the Council of Legal Education. 4.Upon completion of her undergraduate studies, the Appellant applied foradmission to the Advocates Training Programme at the Kenya School of Law. By a letter dated 27th December 2025, the Respondent declined the application. 5.Aggrieved by that decision, the Appellant lodged the present appeal before thisTribunal, contending that the Respondent misdirected itself both in law and in fact by relying upon statutory provisions that had already been declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal and by imposing evidential requirements unknown to the governing legal framework. 6.The Appellant accordingly seeks orders that the Respondent’s decision of 27th December 2025 be quashed and/or set aside; a declaration that she is qualified and/or eligible for admission to the ATP by virtue of her recognised academic progression under Section 8 of the Legal Education Act, 2012; a declaration that her prior relevant learning constituted a valid and lawful basis for her application; an order directing the Respondent to admit her, or in the alternative to reconsider her application, to the 2026/2027 ATP forthwith and unconditionally. 7.The Respondent opposed the appeal by way of a Replying Affidavit sworn byLawrence Ndirangu, Officer, Academic Services, on 5th June 2026. The Respondent avers that matters of admission to the ATP remain exclusively governed by Section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act, and that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is confined to matters arising under the Legal Education Act, 2012. It avers that the Appellant was found ineligible under Section 16, read together with Paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, “as interpreted by the Court of Appeal” that is, on the requirement of a mean grade of C+ (plus) in KCSE together with a grade of B (plain) in English or Kiswahili, which the Appellant did not attain. 8.The Respondent further avers that the Kenya School of Law Act makes noprovision for academic progression as a basis for admission, and that to admit an applicant on the strength of a qualification obtained prior to her LLB would circumvent the statute and what it describes as the Court of Appeal’s settled determination on the question. 9.The Interested Party opposed the appeal by way of a Replying Affidavit swornby Prof. Busalile Jack Mwimali, its Chief Executive Officer, on 8th June 2026. It acknowledges the multiple pathways into legal education recognised under Section 22 of the Legal Education Act, but maintains, relying on Republic v Council of Legal Education & Another Ex Parte Sabiha Kassamia & Another [2018] eKLR, that academic progression is not automatic and remains subject to lawful regulatory thresholds, the burden of proving compliance with which it says lies on the Appellant. 10.Of particular relevance to this appeal, the Interested Party avers that whilethe Appellant has produced a Diploma in Law certificate, she has not produced the certified transcripts evidencing the specific core units undertaken and passed at diploma level as prescribed under the Second Schedule to the Legal Education Act, and submits that the Tribunal ought to satisfy itself on this score before making any finding of eligibility. B. Parties’ Submissions 11.The Appellant submitted that following the Court of Appeal's decision, theRespondent can no longer rely upon section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act or the Second Schedule thereto in assessing eligibility for admission to the Advocates Training Programme. Instead, admissions must be governed exclusively by the Legal Education Act and the applicable Regulations made thereunder. 12.The Appellant further submitted that she falls squarely within the academicprogression pathway recognised under paragraph 5 of the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009, having first obtained a recognised Diploma in Law before proceeding to acquire an LL.B degree from an accredited university. 13.According to the Appellant, the Respondent erred by treating her KCSEperformance as determinative notwithstanding that the progression pathway expressly accommodates applicants who have advanced through recognised legal qualifications. 14.The Appellant further argued that once it is demonstrated that an applicantholds both a recognised Diploma in Law and a qualifying LL.B degree from an accredited institution, there is no legal basis for demanding additional documentary proof of the individual units undertaken unless there exists a specific evidential basis for questioning the authenticity or validity of the qualification itself. 15.It is the Appellant's position that Mount Kenya University is an accreditedlegal education provider whose programmes are subject to continuous regulation and quality assurance by the Council of Legal Education. Consequently, in the absence of any evidence that the Diploma in Law issued by that institution failed to comply with the prescribed curriculum, the Respondent could not lawfully reject the qualification based on speculation or unsupported doubt. 16.The Respondent opposes the appeal and maintains that its decision was lawfuland consistent with the applicable admission framework. 17.While acknowledging the decision of the Court of Appeal in Stephen Nikita Otinga, the Respondent contends that the judgment did not abolish all admission requirements to the Advocates Training Programme, nor did it confer an automatic right of admission upon every holder of an LL.B degree. 18.The Respondent submits that every applicant must still demonstratecompliance with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements governing admission and that the burden of establishing eligibility rests upon the applicant. 19.In the Respondent's view, the Appellant failed to discharge that burdenbecause, although she relied upon a Diploma in Law obtained before admission to the LL.B programme, she did not furnish adequate documentary evidence demonstrating that the diploma covered the core legal subjects contemplated under the applicable Regulations. 20.The Respondent therefore maintains that, in the absence of official transcriptsor equivalent documentary proof of the curriculum undertaken, it could not verify that the Appellant satisfied the progression pathway recognised under the governing legal framework. 21.The Interested Party, the Council of Legal Education, participated in theseproceedings principally to assist the Tribunal on the proper interpretation of the applicable legal framework following the Court of Appeal's decision in Stephen Nikita Otinga. 22.The Interested Party submitted that the effect of Otinga is limited to declaring unconstitutional the provisions of section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act and the Second Schedule thereto insofar as they purported to prescribe admission requirements that properly fall within the statutory mandate of the Council of Legal Education under section 8(3) of the Legal Education Act. It argues that the decision did not abolish lawful admission requirements nor create an automatic entitlement to admission to the Advocates Training Programme. 23.The Interested Party further submitted that applicants seeking admissionthrough the academic progression pathway must still establish compliance with the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009. In its view, where an applicant relies upon a Diploma in Law, it is incumbent upon that applicant to demonstrate, through appropriate documentary evidence, that the diploma programme covered the prescribed core legal subjects. 24.The Interested Party contended that the Appellant did not provide transcriptsor equivalent evidence from which the Respondent could verify compliance with those requirements. Consequently, it argues that the Respondent cannot be faulted for declining admission. 25.The Interested Party further relies upon the decision of the Court of Appeal inKenya School of Law v Otene Richard Akomo & 41 Others [2022] KECA 1132 (KLR), submitting that the Court affirmed the importance of demonstrating compliance with the applicable admission framework notwithstanding the academic qualifications held by an applicant. 26.Finally, the Interested Party submits that no substantive relief has beensought against it, the impugned admission decision having been made solely by the Respondent. It therefore contends that the appeal, insofar as it concerns the Interested Party, ought to be dismissed. C. Analysis and Determination 27.Having considered the Memorandum of Appeal, responses and submissions of the parties, the Tribunal is of the view that the appeal turns on three broad issues:I.Whether the Respondent applied the correct legal framework indetermining the Appellant's eligibility for admission to the Advocates Training Programme;II.Whether the Appellant satisfied the applicable admissionrequirements under the governing legal framework; andIII.What reliefs, if any, are available. I. Whether the Respondent Applied the Correct Legal Framework in Determining the Appellant's Eligibility for Admission to the Advocates Training Programme; 27.There is no dispute that the Respondent declined the Appellant's applicationprincipally on two grounds. First, that she had not attained the minimum Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) grades previously prescribed under section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act and the Second Schedule thereto. Secondly, that the documents submitted did not adequately demonstrate that her Diploma in Law satisfied the prescribed curriculum. 28.The first question, therefore, is whether the Respondent was entitled to relyupon section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act in determining the Appellant's eligibility. 29.That question, in the Tribunal's view, has now been conclusively answered bythe Court of Appeal in Stephen Nikita Otinga. In that decision, the Court held that Parliament vested the exclusive mandate of prescribing admission requirements for legal education programmes, including the Advocates Training Programme, in the Council of Legal Education under section 8(3)(a) of the Legal Education Act. Consequently, section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act and the Second Schedule thereto were declared unconstitutional and of no legal effect to the extent that they purported to prescribe admission requirements independently of that statutory mandate. 30.The Court further declared that section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Actcould not continue to operate where it conflicted with the Legal Education Act, the latter being the legislation specifically enacted to regulate legal education and to confer regulatory authority upon the Council of Legal Education. 31.This Tribunal is bound by the doctrine of stare decisis. It has neither jurisdiction nor discretion to depart from the interpretation of the law adopted by the Court of Appeal. 32.The inevitable consequence is that, following Otinga, admission to the Advocates Training Programme can no longer be determined by reference to section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act or the Second Schedule thereto. Any administrative decision founded upon those provisions cannot be sustained in law. 33.To the extent, therefore, that the Respondent relied upon the Appellant'sKCSE grades as prescribed under the impugned statutory provisions, it applied the wrong legal framework and thereby fell into error. 34.The Interested Party nevertheless urged the Tribunal to find that Otinga did not create an automatic right of admission to the Advocates Training Programme, but merely removed an unconstitutional statutory barrier. On that proposition, the Tribunal is in agreement. 35.Properly understood, Otinga does not abolish admission requirements to the Advocates Training Programme. Rather, it determines who possesses the legal authority to prescribe those requirements. The decision transferred no substantive entitlement to applicants; instead, it reaffirmed that admission criteria must emanate from the Council of Legal Education pursuant to section 8(3) of the Legal Education Act and the regulations lawfully made thereunder. 36.The Tribunal therefore accepts the Interested Party's submission that everyapplicant must still satisfy the applicable admission framework. The removal of section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act from the legal landscape does not entitle every holder of an LL.B degree to admission as of right. 37.The question before the Tribunal is consequently not whether the Appellantautomatically qualifies following Otinga, but whether she satisfies the lawful admission framework that remains operative after that decision. 38.The parties agree that, following Otinga, the applicable admission regime is found in the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009. 39.Those Regulations recognise more than one pathway to admission to theAdvocates Training Programme. Besides the conventional direct-entry route, they also recognise progression through prior legal qualifications obtained from recognised institutions. 40.The eligibility criteria for admission to the Advocates Training Programme areprescribed under paragraph 5 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009. Paragraph 5 provides four distinct pathways through which an applicant may qualify for admission. In summary, an applicant must satisfy one of the following categories—a.have passed the relevant examinations of a recognised university inKenya and hold, or be eligible for the conferment of, the Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) degree of that university;b.have passed the relevant examinations of a prescribed university orinstitution, hold or be eligible for the conferment of the LL.B degree, and, prior to enrolment at that institution, have attained the minimum university entry requirements together with a minimum grade of B (Plain) in English and a mean grade of C+ (Plus) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) examination or its equivalent;c.hold an LL.B degree from a recognised university, have attained aminimum grade of C+ (Plus) in English and a mean grade of C (Plain) at KCSE, and additionally possess a higher qualification, including an Advanced Level qualification, an International Baccalaureate, a relevant diploma, another undergraduate degree or a higher degree in law; ord.hold an LL.B degree from a recognised university, have attained aminimum grade of C– (Minus) in English and a mean grade of C– (Minus) at KCSE, and have sat and passed the Pre-Bar Examination administered by the Council of Legal Education. 41.In determining whether the Appellant satisfies the prescribed admissionrequirements, the Tribunal considers her qualifications against each of the alternative pathways provided under paragraph 5 of the 2009 Regulations. 42.The first pathway is inapplicable to the Appellant. It contemplates anapplicant who proceeds directly to the Bachelor of Laws degree at a recognised Kenyan university. The Appellant, however, pursued her legal education through the academic progression route, having first obtained a Diploma in Law before enrolling for the LL.B programme. Her eligibility therefore does not fall for consideration under this category. 43.The Appellant likewise does not qualify under the second pathway. Thatcategory applies to applicants who obtained their LL.B degree through a prescribed university or institution and requires, as a condition precedent to enrolment, a minimum grade of B (Plain) in English and a mean grade of C+ (Plus) at KCSE. The Appellant attained a mean grade of C (Plain) and a grade of C+ (Plus) in English. While the latter satisfies the English requirement under paragraph 5(c), it falls short of the B (Plain) threshold prescribed under paragraph 5(b). She therefore does not satisfy the requirements of that category. 44.The Tribunal now turns to the third pathway, which requires an applicantto demonstrate four cumulative requirements: first, possession of an LL.B degree from a recognised university; secondly, a minimum grade of C+ (Plus) in English; thirdly, a minimum mean grade of C (Plain) at KCSE; and fourthly, possession of an additional qualifying credential, including a relevant Diploma. In the present case, there is no dispute that the Appellant holds a Bachelor of Laws degree (Second Class Honours, Upper Division) from Mount Kenya University, a recognised university. Equally undisputed is that she attained a grade of C+ (Plus) in English and a mean grade of C (Plain) at KCSE. The only issue requiring determination is whether the Appellant has established compliance with the fourth requirement by demonstrating possession of a relevant Diploma in Law. 45.In support of that requirement, the Appellant produced a Diploma in Lawcertificate issued by Mount Kenya University, certifying that she was awarded the qualification with Credit II prior to her admission to the LL.B programme. The Interested Party does not dispute either the authenticity of the certificate or the status of Mount Kenya University as a recognised institution authorised to offer legal education programmes. Its objection is narrower. It contends that the Appellant failed to produce certified academic transcripts demonstrating that the diploma programme comprised the prescribed core units set out under the applicable legal framework and that, in the absence of such transcripts, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the qualification meets the prescribed curriculum. 46.The Tribunal has carefully considered that objection but is unable to agreewith it. The qualification relied upon by the Appellant is not a generic diploma of uncertain relevance to legal education, such as that considered by the Court of Appeal in Kenya School of Law v Otene Richard Akomo & 41 Others [2022] KECA 1132 (KLR). Rather, it is a Diploma in Law awarded by a recognised university whose legal education programmes are subject to the regulatory oversight, accreditation and quality assurance functions of the Council of Legal Education under the Legal Education Act. More importantly, neither the Respondent nor the Interested Party has identified any specific deficiency in the Appellant's Diploma in Law programme. No evidence has been placed before the Tribunal to suggest that the programme omitted any prescribed core subject, failed to comply with the applicable curriculum, or was otherwise deficient. The objection is therefore directed solely at the absence of transcripts rather than at the substance or validity of the qualification itself. 47.In the Tribunal's considered view, the production of a Diploma in Lawcertificate issued by a recognised and accredited institution constitutes prima facie evidence that the holder has successfully completed a programme meeting the prescribed standards. Where the regulator or the admitting institution disputes that position, it bears the evidential burden of identifying some specific deficiency in the qualification relied upon. A bare assertion that academic transcripts have not been produced, without any corresponding evidence that the programme itself was deficient or non-compliant, is insufficient to displace that prima facie position. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the Appellant has established compliance with the fourth requirement under paragraph 5(c) of the 2009 Regulations. Having found that all four cumulative requirements under that provision have been met, the Tribunal concludes that the Appellant qualifies for admission to the Advocates Training Programme under that pathway. 48.The fourth pathway is equally inapplicable. It is specifically intended forapplicants who attained a minimum mean grade of C– (Minus) and a minimum grade of C– (Minus) in English at KCSE and who are required to sit and pass the Pre-Bar Examination before qualifying for admission. As the Appellant's academic qualifications exceed those minimum thresholds, her eligibility properly falls for determination under paragraph 5(c), with which she has been found to comply. 49.Having determined that the Appellant satisfies the admission requirementsprescribed under paragraph 5(c) of the First Schedule to the 2009 Regulations, the remaining issues canvassed by the parties no longer arise for determination. The Tribunal accordingly declines to pronounce itself upon them, and nothing contained in this judgment should be construed as expressing any view, whether express or implied, on their merits. D. Disposition 50.In the circumstances, the Tribunal proceeds to make the following orders:1.That the appeal by Winnie Lasoi Lekeni against the decision of the Respondent is hereby allowed and the impugned decision of 27th December 2025 is quashed.2.That pursuant to Section 35 of the Legal Education Act, 2012, a declaration ishereby issued that the Appellant, Winnie Lasoi Lekeni, is eligible for admission to the Advocates Training Programme by dint of Paragraph 5(iii) of Part II of the First Schedule to the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009, and the Respondent is ordered to admit her to the Advocates Training Programme forthwith.3.That each party shall bear its own costs of the appeal.4.That a party aggrieved is at liberty to appeal to the High Court under Section38(1) of the Legal Education Act, 2012, on a point of law.It is so ordered. DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 2026SIGNED BY/FORHON. JULIANA NJIRIRI — CHAIRHON. JOSHUA NGULU — MEMBERHON. FELIX OKETCH — MEMBERHON. MOSES MUNOKO — MEMBERHON. GODANA YATANI — MEMBER