Mwema v Kenya School of Law & another (Appeal E020 of 2026) [2026] KELEAT 16 (KLR) (28 April 2026) (Judgment)

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: LEGAL EDUCATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: LEAA/E020/2026 JOHN MUTHENGI MWEMA VS KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW AND THE COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION # JUDGMENT ## A. Introduction and Background 1. The Appellant, **JOHN MUTHENGI MWEMA,** lodged the appeal before the Tribunal challenging the decisions of the Kenya School of Law dated 16th December 2025 and 19th January 2026, which rejected his application for admission to the Advocates Training Programme (ATP) for the 2026/2027 academic year. The appeal is brought against the Kenya School of Law, with the Council of Legal Education joined as an Interested Party. 1. The Appellant seeks, inter alia, orders to quash the impugned decisions, adeclaration that he is qualified for admission to the ATP, recognition of his prior learning, and an order compelling his admission to the programme. 1. The Appellant sat for the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education in 2011,attaining a mean grade of B- with a B- in both English and Kiswahili. He thereafter pursued a Diploma in Law and subsequently obtained a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree from Mount Kenya University, an institution accredited by the Council of Legal Education. 1. In November 2025, the Appellant applied for admission to the ATP but hisapplication was rejected by the Respondent. An internal appeal lodged by the Appellant, was similarly dismissed, leading to the present proceedings. 1. The Appellant contends that the Respondent’s decision was unlawful, *ultra vires,* and in violation of his constitutional rights, particularly the right to education. 1. The Respondent’s decision is thus challenged on grounds of illegality,procedural impropriety, and unreasonableness. ## B. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION *Before turning to the substantive issues, the Tribunal notes that, during the mention at which the judgment date was taken, all parties confirmed having exchanged responses and written submissions, however, the said documents are not available on the filing system. The Tribunal is unable to ascertain whether this is due to non-filing or any technical or administrative challenges in the filing system. In the circumstances, and noting that parties were afforded an opportunity to place all relevant material before the Tribunal, the appeal is determined on the basis of the pleadings and material available on record. The Tribunal reiterates that it can only rely on material duly filed and forming part of its official record.* 1. Therefore, having considered the Memorandum of Appeal and the materialproperly before us, in our view, the Appeal raises two issues for determination: * 1. **Whether the Respondent lawfully declined to admit theAppellant to the Advocates Training Programme** * 1. Whether the Appellant is eligible for admission under the prevailinglegal framework **Whether the Respondent lawfully declined to admit the Appellant to the Advocates Training Programme** 1. On issue one, it is not in dispute that the Respondent declined theAppellant’s application on the basis that he had not met the prescribed Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) requirement for admission. 1. Although the impugned decision does not expressly cite the statutoryprovisions relied upon, the requirement invoked is one that derives its legal force from Section 16 and the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, the validity of which has since been challenged and declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal in ***Stephen Nikita Otinga v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Education & 3 Others*.** 1. The effect of a declaration of unconstitutionality is to render the impugnedstatutory provisions void and incapable of forming a lawful basis for administrative action. Once the legal foundation upon which a decision rests is removed, such a decision cannot be sustained in law, irrespective of the form in which it is framed. Whether the Appellant is eligible for admission under the prevailing legal framework 1. While the Respondent relied on statutory provisions that have since beendeclared unconstitutional in declining the Appellant’s admission, that finding alone does not automatically entitle the Appellant to admission, because admission to the Bar is regulated and is contingent upon strict adherence to statutory prerequisites. The Tribunal must, in addition, satisfy itself that the Appellant meets the eligibility requirements under the prevailing legal framework governing admission to the Advocates Training Programme. 1. The Appellant invokes Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act 2012 andRegulation 5(c) of the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations 2009, which provide the governing framework for eligibility for admission to the Advocates Training Programme as administered by the Council of Legal Education. 1. In considering eligibility, the Tribunal has examined the Appellant’sacademic trajectory as set out in the record. The Appellant sat for the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education in 2011, attaining a mean grade of B- with a B- in both English and Kiswahili. He thereafter pursued a Diploma in Law and subsequently obtained a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree from Mount Kenya University, an institution accredited by the Council of Legal Education. 1. This academic progression demonstrates a continuous and recognisedlegal education pathway culminating in the attainment of an LLB qualification from a duly accredited institution. The Tribunal is satisfied that this trajectory falls within the applicable statutory and regulatory framework governing admission to the Advocates Training Programme. 1. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant meets the eligibilityrequirements under Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act and Regulation 5(c) of the 2009 Regulations, and is therefore duly qualified for consideration for admission to the Advocates Training Programme under the prevailing legal regime. 1. Therefore, having found that the Respondent’s decision rested uponunconstitutional statutory provisions, and having satisfied with the Appellant’s demonstration of eligibility for admission to ATP under Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act 2012 and Regulation 5(c) of the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations 2009, the Tribunal finds it unnecessary to traverse the remaining grounds of appeal. ## C. Disposition In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal ORDERS that: 1. The appeal by the Appellant JOHN MUTHENGI MWEMA against thedecision of the respondent dated 16th December 2025 and affirmed on internal appeal on 19th January 2026, is hereby allowed and the decision is quashed and set-aside. 2. Pursuant to section 35 of the Legal Education Act, 2012 a declaration isissued that the Appellant is eligible for admission to the Advocates Training Programme by virtue of Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act, 2012, and the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009, and the Respondent is ordered to admit the Appellant JOHN MUTHENGI MWEMA to the Advocates Training Programme forthwith. 3. Each party to bear own costs of the appeal. 4. 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.** 1. **HON. JULIANA NJIRIRI - CHAIR HON.** 2. **JOSHUA NGULU- MEMBER HON.** 3. **FELIX OKETCH - MEMBER HON.** 4. **MOSES MUNOKO – MEMBER** 5. **HON. GODANA YATANI – MEMBER** **DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2026** 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: 2026-04-28 13:22:35 |