Mutuma v Kenya School of Law & another (Tribunal Appeal E032 of 2026) [2026] KELEAT 1 (KLR) (12 May 2026) (Judgment)

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: LEGAL EDUCATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: LEAA/E032/2026 KENNETH MUTUMA VS KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW AND COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION # JUDGMENT **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE LEGAL EDUCATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI** **APPEAL NO. 032 OF 2026** **KENNETH MUTUMA………………..………………………………….……. APPELLANT** **-VERSUS-** **THE KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW……………………….………..…………RESPONDENT** **COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION………..…………………… INTERESTED PARTY** **JUDGMENT** **A. Introduction and Background** 1. The Appellant, **KENNETH MUTUMA**, through a Memorandum of Appeal, dated the 4th day of February 2026, instituted this Appeal against the **KENYA** **SCHOOL OF LAW** as the Respondent and the **COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION**, as the Interested Party; 1. The Appellant challenges the decisions of the Respondent dated 27th December 2025 and 9th 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; 2. The Appellant seeks the following orders: - 3. Spent. 4. A declaration be hereby issued that the determination of the Appellant’seligibility for admission into the ATP falls within the exclusive statutory mandate of the Council of Legal Education pursuant to section 8 of the Legal Education Act, and that any exclusion of the Appellant effected without a lawful exercise of that mandate is ultra vires, unlawful, and of no legal effect; 5. A declaration be issued recognizing the Appellant’s prior relevant learningand progressive legal education; 6. An order compelling the Respondent to admit the Appellant to the ATP forthe 2026/2027 academic year; and 7. Costs of this appeal be awarded to the Appellant. 8. The Appeal is premised on the following grounds: - * 1. That the Respondent erred in fact and in law and, in denying the Appellantadmission, into the ATP for the year 2026/2027, on the basis of KCSE grading criteria whose continued application has been invalidated by binding superior court jurisprudence; 2. That the Respondent erred in law and in fact in failing to consider, apply, orgive effect to the Appellant’s prior relevant learning and progressive legal education, contrary to statutory and regulatory principles governing legal education; 3. That the Respondent erred in law and in fact by rejecting the Appellant’sinternal appeal without substantive consideration of the grounds and representations made, thereby violating principles of fair administrative action; 4. That the impugned decisions were unreasonable, disproportionate, andprocedurally improper in light of the material, placed before the Respondent. 9. The Appeal is accompanied by a Supporting Affidavit and a Further SupportingAffidavit sworn by the Appellant on 4th February 2026 and 12th March 2026, respectively, which regurgitate the grounds set on the face of the Memorandum of Appeal. 10. The Respondent filed its Replying Affidavit dated 3th March 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 2nd March 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 Legal Education Act, CAP 16B only recognizes ‘Diploma inLaw’ and that a certificate with the nomenclature, ‘Diploma in Legal Studies’ as has been obtained by the Appellant at the Technical University in Kenya cannbe recognised under this legal framework, and further, it dis not have an opportunity to review the Appellant’s transcripts and the curricula that was taught at the Technical University of Kenya; 6. That the Technical University of Kenya is NOT an institution accreditedby the Council of Legal Education to offer Diploma ion Law or any legal studies 7. Lastly, that in exercising its mandate under Section 8 (3) (a) of the LegalEducation Act, CAP 16B, it is in the process of developing regulations to formulate admission requirements to the ATP and the same is undergoing stakeholders’ engagement/participation. **B. Submissions** **Appellant’s submissions** 1. The Appellant filed his submissions dated 27th March 2026 setting out four issues it commends the Tribunal for determination: What legal framework should govern his eligibility criteria to the ATP; Whether his Diploma in Legal Studies satisfies the statutory threshold for academic progression under the Legal Education Act; Whether the Respondent can rely on KCSE eligibility requirements under section 16 of the Kenya School of Law Act; and Whether the Respondent’s decision meets the constitutional threshold of fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya? 1. On the applicable legal framework, the Appellant relies on the case of**Stephen Nikita Otinga v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. E625 of 2023) [2025] KECA 460 eKLR**, 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. The Appellant also relies on this Tribunal’s decided cases of **Wanjiru v Kenya School of Law & Council of Legal Education Act (Appeal No. E009 of 2024) [2025] KELEAT 1 eKLR and Wangila v Kenya School of Law & Council of Legal Education (LEEA No. E001 of 2025), Ndung’u v Kenya School of Law & Council of Legal Education (LEEA No. E008 of 2024),** and **Kiruki v Kenya School of Law & Council of Legal Education (LEEA No. E003 of 2025).** He asserts that since this section has been annulled, it cannot be relied upon as a ground for refusal to the ATP; 2. The Appellant asserts that he qualifies for admission on the basis ofacademic progression pathway, as provided for under the Legal Education Act. He explains the content of his Diploma in Law as meeting the minimum requirements of prescribed core courses under Section 22 and the Second Schedule of the Legal Education Act, 2012; * 1. The Appellant invites the Tribunal to assess his eligibility criteria under thelegal framework provided under Section 8(3) (c) of the Legal Education Act, 2012, and the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009, as the prevailing legal regime applicable, putting into consideration his academic qualifications, his Diploma in Law, and his professional experience in law; 2. On whether Technical University of Kenya was accreditated by theInterested Party, to offer a Diploma in Law or any Legal studies, the Appellant asserts that the issue for determination is not whether the Appellant’s Diploma constitutes a formally accredited legal qualification for independent regulatory purposes, but whether the Appellant has demonstrable prior learning and experience in law capable of recognition under the prevailing legal framework summarised under paragraph (c ) above; 3. The Appellant stresses that what the Tribunal should be interested with isthat he enrolled into a public university, undertook a course of legal study over the prescribed duration, and was awarded a Diploma in Law. For him to be denied the benefit of that learning on the basis of an alleged regulatory lapse on the part of the institution would be to impose a burden the law does not contemplate, and to visit the consequences of institutional regulation upon a student who had no control over it; and 4. The Appellant further argues that the Respondent’s decision is against theprovisions of Article 47 of Constitution of Kenya and Section 7(2) (a) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, for being unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair. **Respondent’s Submissions** 1. The Respondent filed its submissions dated 26th March 2026, raising four issues for determination by this Tribunal; 2. On jurisdiction, the Respondent submitted, citing the late Justice Nyarangi in**Owners of Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd**, 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 26th March 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 whether academic progression is relevant to the law, the Interested Partysubmits that the Honourable Tribunal is bound by the clear and unequivocal of interpretation of Section 8 (3) ( c) of the Legal Education Act, in **Kenya School of Law v Otene Richard Akomo & 41 Others [2021] KECA 608 (KLR) (Otene case),** which establishes the foundational principle that for any prior qualification to constitute relevant ‘progression’ toward legal training, it must be intrinsically and substantively be legal in nature; progression in legal education requires prior legal learning or legal experience; 17. On whether the Interested Party bears any constitutional or statutory liabilityfor the liability actions of the Respondent, it distances itself with the actions of the Respondent and states that the two parties are distinct statutory bodies; and it is only the Respondent which should be challenged on matters of admission to the ATP and therefore the suit against it is fatally defective for misjoinder; 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** 1. Having considered all the facts, the evidence and the submissions of theparties, the Tribunal has narrowed down the following issues for determination in this Appeal: - * 1. **Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine thisappeal.** 2. **What is the governing legal framework and whether theAppellant is qualified for admission to the ATP on the basis of academic progression?** 3. **Can the Appellant benefit from the doctrine of legitimateexpectation?** 4. **Whether the Appellant is entitled to the Prayers sought?** **I Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal.** 1. The Respondent challenges the jurisdiction of this Honourable Tribunal. Itasserts that ATP admission is guided exclusively by the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 and thus, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction as it derives its powers from the Legal Education Act, 2012. In this regard, the Tribunal concedes to the famous sentiments of Nyarangi JA in **Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR** that***:***- ***“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a Court has no power to make one more step. Where a Court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A Court of law down tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.”*** 1. Therefore, the Tribunal is obligated to determine its jurisdiction beforeproceeding to consider any other issue. 2. In determining the issue of jurisdiction, the Tribunal considers the roots of thisappeal which undoubtedly arises from the Appellant’s denial of admission to the Respondent’s ATP on the grounds that he did not meet the eligibility criteria under the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012. 3. This Tribunal derives its authority and jurisdiction from Section 31(1) of theLegal Education Act, 2012, which confers upon the Tribunal the mandate to inquire into any matter relating to the Act. It provides as follows: - ***“The Tribunal shall, upon an appeal made to it in writing by any party or a reference made to it by the council or by any committee or officer of the council, on any matter relating to this Act inquire into the matter and make a finding there upon, and notify the parties concerned.”*** 1. Further, Section 8(3) of the Legal Education Act, 2012 mandates the Councilas follows: ***“In carrying out its functions under subsection (2), the Council shall—(a)make Regulations in respect of requirements for the admission of persons seeking to enroll in legal education programmes;*** ***(b)establish criteria for the recognition and equation of academic qualifications in legal education;*** ***(c)formulate a system for recognizing prior learning and experience in law to facilitate progression in legal education from lower levels of learning to higher levels;…”*** 1. The case before us involves a blend of disputes arising from both the KenyaSchool of Law Act, 2012 and the Legal Education Act, 2012. The Tribunal takes note that the Interested Party, established under Section 4 of the Legal Education Act, 2012, has a supervisory role over the Respondent, including oversight of its ATP. In **Nabulime Miriam & Others v Council of Legal Education & 5 Others (2016) eKLR**, Justice Odunga held: **“*That the body with the legal mandate to determine the qualification for Admission, registration of Applicants to the Kenya School of Law is the Council but the actual admission of students to the School is to be undertaken by the school. That the body with the legal mandate as between Kenya School of Law, and the Council for Legal Education, to set, supervise or mark Advocate Training Programme examinations is the Council though in this instance, that mandate was delegated to the School by the Council.”*** 1. The Honourable Tribunal finds refuge in the case: **Kenya School of Law v Gachoki & 2 others; Council of Legal Education (Interested Party) (Civil Appeal E062 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 528 (KLR) (Civ) (31 January 2024) (Judgment),** where Justice Majanja(as he then was)held**:** ***“On my part, I do not see any reason to depart from the settled position on jurisdiction. Section 31(1) of*** [***Legal Education Act***](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2012/27) ***grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to inquire into, “… any matter relating to this Act,’’ which is an all-encompassing clause that affirms the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to deal with matters concerning legal education arising not only within the Act itself but also from the*** [***Kenya School of Law Act***](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2012/26) ***under which the*** ## KSL is guided by and applies the provisions of the [Legal Education Act](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2012/27).” 1. From the foregoing, it follows that, the law governing legal education in thecountry places the Respondent under the oversight of the Interested Party. Any decision made by the Respondent can be a subject of review within the established legal regime, including an appeal to this Tribunal. 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. Before we make a conclusion on this issue, it is important to state again thatthe 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 to revisit it severally at the instance of the Respondent. We are very reluctant to appreciate if this trend is helping us grow the jurisprudence of this Honourable Tribunal. 1. We therefore find that the Respondent’s challenge on jurisdiction is withoutmerit and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, we hold that this Honourable Tribunal is well vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine the present appeal. II **What is the Governing Legal Framework and whether the Appellant is qualified for admission to the Advocates Training Program on the basis of academic progression.** 1. The Tribunal has duly considered the arguments and counter-argumentsadvanced by the parties concerning the eligibility criteria for admission to the ATP, on the basis of academic progression. 2. The Appellant submits that Section 16 and the Second Schedule of the KenyaSchool of Law Act, 2012, which provided for the minimum KCSE qualifications have since been nullified by the **Otinga case (supra)**. However, the Respondent maintains that these provisions are applicable and in fact relied on them to deny the Appellant admission to the ATP; 3. 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 Case (Supra),** 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 Tribunalshould closely examine the existing framework which was in place during the period the Appellant was being admitted for his LLB Degree, as against the qualifications which he held pre-admission to the university to pursue his LLB Degree; 3. As per the material placed before us, we note that the Appellant holds thefollowing academic qualifications: A mean grade of C (Plain) with a C (Plain) in English and a C (Plain) in Kiswahili in his KCSE attained in 2016 **(Annexture KM-1)**.Subsequently, in September 2017, the Appellantenrolled for a Diploma in Legal Studies at the Technical University of Kenya graduating in 2021 with a second-class Lower Division **(Annextures KM-2, KM 5a and KM 5b)**. On 10th April 2021, he enrolled at the Kenyatta University for an LLB Degree graduating in December, 2025 with Second-Class Honours, Upper Division **(Annextures KM-3 and KM-4)**; 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 he has pursued all the foundational courses culminating in an award of Diploma in Law and that the Technical University of Kenya, which the Appellant allegedly pursued the Diploma course was not accredited by the Council to offer such a course; 5. The question which begs for an answer is whether the Appellant meets thethreshold to be considered for admission to the ATP on the basis of academic progression and which legal framework should have been applied? 6. This Tribunal considers the period of operation of the Legal Education(Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016, Legal Notice No. 15 of 2016. The regulations were gazetted on 6th February 2016 and subsequently declared unconstitutional on 30th January 2018, by the High Court at Nakuru in **Petition No. 20 of 2016 – Javan Kiche Otieno & Another v Council of Legal Education & Another.** 7. The Tribunal stands guided by the Court of Appeal decision in **Javan Kiche Case (Supra)** where at paragraph 47 it was held;- ***“Consequently, it is explicit that a court having declared a piece of legislation or a section of an act to be unconstitutional, that act or law becomes a nullity from the date of inception or enactment and not from the date of judgment. But it will not be applicable to actions already crystallized whilst the expunged law was in force".*** 1. Guided by the **Javan Kiche Case (supra**) the Tribunal holds that in applying the doctrine of crystallized action, one must have been admitted into an LLB program based on certain regulations and if those regulations are subsequently declared legally invalid, the actions of individuals who relied on them would be deemed to have crystallized and should not be undone; 2. Having regard to this appeal, the crystallized action would entail aconsideration of the point at which the Appellant secured admission to the LLB Degree programme and whether it was before the time the decree of invalidity of the Regulations was entered by the Superior Court on 30th January 2018. From the Appellant’s evidence on record, it is clear that he joined the LLB Programme on 10th April 2021; 3. This being the case, this Honourable Tribunal is of the considered view that asat the time of admission to the LLB Degree programme the 2016 Regulations had since been declared unconstitutional for more than 3 years before and therefore the Appellant could not have had any legitimate expectation to be admitted to the LLB Programme based on the same legal framework; 4. This being the case, and applying the doctrine of crystallized action asdiscussed above, the 2016 Regulations could not have been applied since the actions of individuals who relied on them would not have been deemed to have crystallized; 5. Further, we note that the Interested Party, under Paragraph 15 of its ReplyingAffidavit, avers the following, ‘**That the Technical University of Kenya is NOT an institution accredited by the Council of Legal Education to offer Diploma in Law or any Legal studies.’** What this means therefore, is that the Appellant cannot just pursue a Diploma in Law studies from any institution which has not attained accreditation status from the Interested Party and still justify, in whichever manner, that he is qualified for academic progression; 6. However, suppose we assume that the Technical University of Kenya wasaccredited by the Interested Party to offer a Diploma in Law then. Did the Appellant meet the minimum academic qualifications? 7. We note that as at the time of the Appellant’s admission to the Diploma inLegal Studies at the Technical University of Kenya in 2017, the 2016 the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016 were in force. The Third Schedule Part II, Regulation 4 expressly provides for the minimum academic requirements for admission to a Diploma in Law Programme: **4. Diploma Programme** **(1) The minimum admission requirements to a diploma legal education programme shall be—** * 1. **a mean grade of C (Plain) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education** **examination or its equivalent with at least a C+ (Plus) in English or Kiswahili;** * 1. **at least one Principal Pass at the Kenya Advanced Certificate ofEducation examination;** 2. **a Pass in a certificate of law course offered at an accredited legaleducation provider; or** 3. **a certificate of experiential learning issued by the Council of LegalEducation.** 1. We note that the Appellant scored a mean grade of C Plain and C (Plain) inboth English and Kiswahili. Consequently, we hold and conclude that the Appellant did not meet the minimum academic requirements as his grades for either of the languages are below C+ (plus); 2. Further, this Honourable Tribunal finds that as at the time the Appellant wasbeing admitted into the LLB Programme in 2021, the governing legal framework was the **Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations 2009 Laws of Kenya,** specifically **Schedule II Section 5 (c);** 3. In considering the regulations applicable, this Honourable Tribunal in the**Caroline Case (Supra)** stated at para 51 that : ***“This Tribunal therefore finds that since the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016 were nullified in 2018, then the Regulations applicable to the appellant are the default Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009 pursuant to section 29 (2) of the KSL Act, 2012…….”*** 1. The Appellant, having joined the LLB Programme in April, 2021, we hold thatthe applicable regulations then were the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009. Regulation 5 states as follows: ***A person shall not be eligible for admission for the Post Graduate Diploma*** ***(Advocate Training Programme) unless that person has –*** 1. ***passed the relevant examination of any recognized university inKenya, he holds or has become eligible for the conferment of the*** ***Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B) of that university;*** 1. ***passed the relevant examinations of a university, university college orother institutions prescribed by the Council, he holds or has become eligible for the conferment of the Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B) in the grant of that university, university college or other institution, had prior to enrolling at that university, university college or other institution –*** ***i. attained a minimum entry requirements for admission to a university in Kenya; and ii. a minimum grade B (plain) in English Language and a mean grade of C (plus) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Examination or its equivalent;*** 1. ***a Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B) from a recognized university andattained a minimum grade of C+ (C plus) in English and a minimum aggregate grade of C (plain) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Examination, holds a higher qualification e.g. "A" levels, "IB", relevant "Diploma", other "undergraduate degree" or has attained a higher degree in Law after the undergraduate studies in the Bachelor of Laws Programme; or*** 2. ***a Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B) from recognized university andattained a minimum grade of C- (C minus) in English and a minimum of an aggregate grade of C- (C minus) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Examination sits and passes the Pre-Bar Examination set by the Council of Legal Education as a pre-condition for admission.*** 3. Regulation 5 (c) provides for cumulative and distinct minimum (academic) requirements to have been met by the Appellant to secure admission to the ATP, that is, *inter alia*; an LLB from a recognized university and **attained a grade of C+ (plus) in English and a minimum of an aggregate grade of C- (minus) in KCSE** **(emphasis ours)**…; 4. From the Appellant’s evidence tendered, it is evident that he holds an LLBDegree. However, he does not meet the minimum KCSE qualifications, that of C+ in English, which is the minimum academic requirement for qualification under this pathway; 5. 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, **KENNETH MUTUMA**, against the decision dated **27th December 2025** and as affirmed in an internal appeal on **9th 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 MAY 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: 2026-05-15 12:49:59 |