Njenga v Kenya School of Law (Appeal E040 of 2026) [2026] KELEAT 9 (KLR) (15 June 2026) (Judgment)

 # REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: LEGAL EDUCATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: LEAA/E040/2026 DANIEL NJENGA. VS KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW # JUDGMENT ## A. Introduction and Background 1. The appellant through his appeal dated **25th day of March 2026** appeal before us emanates from the respondents’ decisions **25th February 2026** declining the appellants application for admission to the advocates training programme (ATP) for academic year 2026/2027 on the ground that the Appellant must have graduated on or before 31 December 2025 ("the cut-off date") and that the Appellant produce a formal LLB degree certificate and final transcripts rather than provisional transcripts confirming completion of degree requirements. 2. The appellant through his supporting affidavit avers that he has completed allprescribed academic requirements for the award of the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree at the University of Nairobi. The official provisional result slips for all four academic years, issued and signed by the Dean of the Faculty of Law and bearing the official stamp of the Faculty, confirm my results for each year. The final year provisional result slip records the following recommendation in respect of my degree: "PASS. AWARDED THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF LAWS AT SECOND CLASS HONOURS, UPPER DIVISION." 1. The appellant avers that he was unable to register within the stipulatedregistration window of 19–30 January 2026 due to personal financial constraints, specifically his inability to raise the required minimum fee deposit within that period. He further purports that on 3rd February 2026 at 11:52 AM, he sent an email to Dr. Henry Mutai, Director/CEO of the Kenya School of Law, requesting permission to register out of time where the Director/CEO responded on the same day at 1:05 PM by email in the following terms: "Your request to register late is approved subject to confirmation of payment of minimum fee deposit of KSh. 80,000/=. 1. The Appellant avers that on 13th February 2026, he was not yet able to remit the full KSh. 80,000 by the stated deadline and accordingly sent the Director an email requesting a short extension of the fee payment deadline but by 23 February 2026, he had successfully raised the required KSh. 80,000 and sent the Director an email confirming that the funds had been raised and renewing his request for late registration. He further avers that On 24th February 2026 at 2:02 PM, the Director granted him a final approval by email. 2. The Appellant herein on 25th February 2026, physically attended the Kenya School of Law campus at Karen to complete registration on that date and his request to register was declined. He was informed via email at 2:35pm that only those students who graduated before 31st December 2025 were being registered and since he did not fall into that category that he has to defer his registration to the next academic year 2027/28 because he does not have his LLB certificate which we need to verify. 3. In the Respondent’s replying affidavit sworn on 1st April 2026, the deponer, Lawrence Ndirangu avers that admission to ATP is exclusively under section 16 of the Kenya school of law Act. He further states that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal, since its jurisdiction is limited to matters emanating from the Legal Education Act. 4. The Respondent further avers that they are required by Kenya School of LawAct to register applicants who have accepted the offer of admission upon meeting conditions including production of documents and payment of requisite fees. They further aver that the Appellant met the eligibility criteria. 5. The Respondent avers that the Kenya School of Law (Training Programmes) Regulations specifically require that registration be completed once the student provides copies of the relevant academic transcripts which the appellant was not able to. They purport that since the Appellant only provided provisional transcripts; his admission was not revoked rather deferred to the next year. 6. Finally, the Respondent aver that they have complied with the regulations andcorrectly applied the law. They further aver that it would set a dangerous precedent to accept provisional transcripts which may raise the risk of fraud and admission of unqualified persons into the profession. ## B. Parties Submissions **The Appellant** 1. The appellant filed her submissions dated 27th April 2026 raising six issues for determination.The Appellant claims that the governing eligibility criteria are set out in Section 16(1) of the Legal Education Act, 2012 and the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 (Cap 16C) and that both must be read together and that both confirm the Appellant's eligibility. The Appellant makes reference to Section 16 (1) and Second Schedule of the act. 2. The Appellant submitted that he satisfied the statutory requirements foradmission, as he had already been awarded a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree by the University of Nairobi Senate in the Second Class Honours (Upper Division). He contended that this fact was conclusively demonstrated by the official provisional results slip, duly signed by the Dean and stamped by the Faculty, which expressly stated that the degree had been "awarded." According to the Appellant, the use of the word "awarded" signified that the Senate had already exercised its academic authority and conferred the degree, thereby rendering him eligible for its conferment within the meaning of the applicable legal instruments. 3. The Appellant further argued that the graduation ceremony is merely a formal public recognition of an academic status already attained and does not create the degree itself. He maintained that the legally operative act is the Senate's resolution awarding the degree. Consequently, the Director's insistence on the production of a formal degree certificate as a prerequisite for registration imposed an additional requirement not contemplated by law. The Appellant asserted that neither the Legal Education Act, 2012, the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012, the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016, nor Legal Notice No. 175 of 2015 requires an applicant to produce a degree certificate. The relevant legal requirement, he argued, is that an applicant either holds the degree or is eligible for its conferment, a criterion which he had satisfied. 4. In the other issue, the Appellant submitted that the Director acted ultra viresby introducing two admission requirements not provided for in any statute, regulation, or lawful instrument: first, that the Appellant must have formally graduated on or before 31 December 2025; and second, that he must produce a formal LLB degree certificate. The Appellant contended that these conditions were unlawfully imposed and exceeded the Director's statutory mandate. 5. The Appellant further argued that, as a statutory body established under theKenya School of Law Act, 2012, the Kenya School of Law is bound by the admission criteria set out in the Second Schedule to the Act. The Director, as the School's chief executive officer, lacks the authority to alter, supplement, or impose additional requirements beyond those prescribed by law. In support of this position, the Appellant relied **on Republic v Kenya School of Law & Another ex parte Otieno Ragot & 4 Others [2012] eKLR and affirmed on appeal in Kenya** **School of Law v Otieno-Ragot & 9 Others [2014] eKLR, Gitau & another v Kenya School of Law [2023] KELEAT 383 (KLR).** 1. The Appellant also challenged the Respondents' reliance on Legal Notice No.175 of 2015 to justify the requirement for a formal degree certificate. He submitted that subsidiary legislation cannot be interpreted or applied in a manner that is inconsistent with its parent statute or binding judicial precedent. According to the Appellant, both the Tribunal and the High Court have affirmed that provisional documentation confirming the Senate's award of a degree is sufficient proof of eligibility for admission. 2. The Appellant submitted that the Director unlawfully fettered his discretion bytreating the graduation cut-off date and degree certificate requirement as inflexible conditions, without considering the Appellant's individual circumstances. He argued that he had completed all LLB requirements, had been formally awarded the degree by the University of Nairobi Senate as evidenced by the provisional results slip, had received written approval for late registration on three occasions, and had complied with the sole condition communicated to him, namely payment of KSh. 80,000, which he duly paid. 3. The Appellant contended that the Director's rigid application of an undisclosedinternal cut-off date, without regard to these circumstances, amounted to an unlawful fettering of discretion. In support of this argument, he relied on **British Oxygen Co Ltd v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610** which established that a public authority must not, by adopting a rigid policy. The Appellant further submitted that the impugned decision was irrational and unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense, citing **Council for Civil Service Unions v The Minister for Civil Service (1985) A.C. 324 at 401D** 4. On the issue of legitimate expectation, the Appellant argued that the Directormade three clear and unequivocal written representations that payment of KSh. 80,000 was the only outstanding requirement for registration. He asserted that these representations were made with full knowledge of his circumstances and did not mention any graduation deadline or degree certificate requirement. Relying on those representations, he raised and paid the required fees and reported to the Kenya School of Law as directed. The subsequent refusal to register him on different grounds, he contended, amounted to a breach of his legitimate expectation, relying on **Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority ex parte Unilever Kenya Limited [2004] 2 KLR 111.** 5. The Appellant further argued that the Respondents' admission that they hadgranted him several extensions and accommodations supported his case. He maintained that those extensions related solely to payment of fees and that the alleged graduation and documentation requirements were never raised until the final refusal, rendering the decision unfair and inconsistent with the Respondents' earlier representations. 6. The Appellant submitted that the impugned decision violated Article 47 of theConstitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. He argued that the graduation cut-off date and degree certificate requirements were raised for the first time shortly before the decision was communicated, without prior notice, disclosure, or an opportunity to be heard. He further contended that the decision failed to provide adequate reasons, as it did not identify the legal basis for the requirements, address the provisional results slip confirming the Senate's award of the degree, consider the prior approvals granted by the Director, or account for the Appellant's individual circumstances. 7. The Appellant also submitted that the decision infringed his constitutionalright to education under Article 43(1)(f) of the Constitution. He argued that the refusal to register him would delay his legal education by at least two academic years, causing prejudice that could not be adequately remedied by an award of damages. 8. The Appellant further contended that the Respondents' defences lacked merit.He argued that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under sections 29 and 30 of the Legal Education Act, 2012 to hear appeals arising from decisions of legal education providers affecting students, including decisions on registration. Regarding the degree certificate requirement, he maintained that reliance on Legal Notice No. 175 of 2015 was misplaced, as subsidiary legislation cannot override the parent statute or binding judicial precedent. He further argued that the Director's previous written approvals, which did not mention the requirement, effectively precluded the Respondents from relying on it at a later stage. 9. On the allegation of fraud risk, the Appellant submitted that the provisionalresults slip was an official document issued by the University of Nairobi and was capable of independent verification. He further argued that concerns relating to fraud were never communicated to him, were not relied upon in the impugned decision, and could not subsequently be advanced to justify the decision. 10. Finally, the Appellant that this Tribunal grant such further or other relief as itdeems just and appropriate. **The Respondent** 1. In its submissions dated **25th April 2026, the 1st and 2nd** Respondents have raised 4 substantive issues for determination. They contend that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction over a matter that is outside the scope of the Legal Education Act as expressly conferred by Section 31 of the Act. To buttress this position, the Respondent relied on the following authorities: **Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" vs. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR, Bakeries Limited vs. Rent Restriction Tribunal and Kiriti Raval Nairobi HCMCC No. 246 of 1981; and Ex Parte Mayfair Bakeries Limited vs. Rent Restriction Tribunal and Kirit Raval, Nairobi HCMCC No. 246 of1981, Society of Kenya v Centre for Human Rights and Democracy & 13 others [2013].** 2. The Respondents also submitted that it created no legitimate expectation forthe Appellant regarding his admission to the ATP.On whether the procedure to refuse admission was illegal or unreasonable, the Respondents submitted that its actions were in line with Article 47(1) of the Constitution which guarantees the right to fair administrative action. 3. The Respondents submit that they are required by the Kenya School of LawAct to consider applications for admission to the ATP and once satisfied that the applicant is qualified, admit the applicant to the school. They further claim that relevant section is Section 17 of the Act. 4. The Respondents submit that the Appellant does not qualify to be admitted to the Advocates Training Programme (ATP) by reason of academic progression because the applicable law, which is 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 Court of Appeal made the following observations. They rely on the **case of Civil Appeal E625 of 2023 Stephen Otinga Nikita V The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 3 Others the Court of Appeal** directed the Interested Party to enact regulations to establish and govern ATP programmes including the Respondent's programme. They submit 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 for themselves. 1. The Respondents claim that the prayers of the original petition in Otinga case(supra) should be considered the Respondents quote the prayer. A declaration be and is hereby issued that pursuant to section 8(3)(a) of the Legal Education Act, No. 27 of 2012, it is the exclusive mandate of the Council of Legal Education to make Regulations in respect of requirements for the admission of persons seeking to enrol in all legal education programmes including the Advocates Training Programme. They further submit that the Court of Appeal in Richard Otene Akomo agreed with the said determination that nothing in the KSL Act mandates it to make regulations on matters provided for in the Legal Education Act and no evidence of Appellant making such regulations 2. The Respondents quote another prayer and submits that the framing of thesaid prayer establishes a threshold which must be tested and met for the declaration of an inconsistency is made. They submit that an inconsistency would only arise if sections 16 and the second schedule met this threshold, which they quote, “in so far as they purport to prescribe requirements for admission of persons seeking to enroll in legal education programmes such as the Advocates Training Programme. 3. The Respondents submit that the Court of Appeal in Richard Otene Akomoagreed that nothing in the KSL Act mandated it to make regulations on matters for in the Legal Education Act and no evidence of Appellant making such regulations. 4. The Respondents submit that the declaration in order declaring the KenyaSchool of Law Act inconsistent, null and void for violating the mandate of the Council of Legal Education under Section 8(3)(C) of the Legal Education Act to formulate a system for recognising prior learning and end experience in law to facilitate progression in legal education from lower levels of learning to higher levels can only apply where it has been demonstrated that the Appellant has formulated its own regulations for progression from lower to higher progression. The Respondent avers that no such regulations attributable to the Appellant have been presented in this matter for consideration. 5. The Respondents invites the Tribunal to find that the judgment in StephenOtinga must be contextualised and read with Richard Otene. The Respondent submits that it’s their submission that the two judgements are not in conflict rather define the boundaries within which the Appellant can determine its admission criteria. ## C. Analysis and Determination **Whether the Tribunal has Jurisdiction to deal with this Appeal?** 1. It is the respondent’s argument in its replying affidavit that the Tribunal lacksthe jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal. However, the appellant in her submissions reiterates that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction emanates from section 31(1) of the LEA. Therefore, where jurisdiction is contested, this Tribunal has to decide the issue first, before anything else. 2. It is well settled that jurisdiction is the power of a court of law or tribunal toinquire into facts, applying the law and declaring the relief in a steady course of judicial proceedings. In this case, **section 31(1) of LEA** mandates this Tribunal to hear appeals made to it emanating from the Council or any other committee. It states that: **“The Tribunal shall, upon an appeal made to it in writing by any party or a reference made to it by the Council or by any committee or officer of the Council, on any matter relating to this Act, inquire into the matter and make a finding thereupon, and notify the parties concerned.”** 1. The jurisdiction of a court flows from the Constitution or statute or both. Thiswas stated by the **Ugandan Supreme Court in Kagimu Rogers Gusomba v Sekayondo Apollo and Another (Civil Suit 92 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 704 (19 August 2025)** where the court held that: **“A Court’s jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law.** **It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law. A court ought to exercise its powers strictly within the jurisdictional limits prescribed by the law. Acting without jurisdiction or ultra vires or contrary to the provisions of a law or its principles are instances of illegality”** 1. Locally, the **Court of Appeal in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” vs. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR,** held that if the court lacks jurisdiction, it should down its tools. It stated 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 downs its tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.”** 1. In **Kenya School of law –Vs- Gachoki & 2 others [ civil appeal E062 of 2022(2024}** in upholding this Tribunal’s jurisdiction, Majanja, J stated that: **“On my part I do not see any reason to depart from the settled position on jurisdiction. Section 31(1) of the Legal education act 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 under which KSL is guided by and applies the provisions of Legal Education Act” Emphasis, ours** 1. This Tribunal has in its previous decisions upheld its jurisdiction to hear anddetermine matters before it from the respondent. See **Eric Ng’angá Wanjiru v Kenya School of Law & Another [2025], Caroline Kathure Kariuki -v-Kenya School of Law & Another [2025] KELEAT and Alvin Njuguna Njenga -vKenya School of Law & Another [2025] KELEAT 2(KLR).** The Tribunal thus reiterates its powers to handle this appeal. **Whether the Appellant meets the statutory eligibility criteria for ATP admission** 1. The Tribunal has considered the pleadings, evidence, and submissions of theparties. It is not disputed that the Appellant applied for admission to the Advocates Training Programme (ATP), received an admission letter from the Respondent, and was subsequently granted extensions of time by the Director to facilitate payment of the requisite fees. It is equally undisputed that upon payment of KShs. 80,000 and presentation for registration, the Appellant was not registered on the basis that he had neither graduated nor produced a formal degree certificate and final academic transcripts. 2. The Tribunal notes that both parties placed considerable reliance on **section 16 and the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act**. However, following their invalidation by the Court of Appeal in the **Otinga decision**, those provisions cannot form the legal basis for determining eligibility for admission to the ATP. 3. The applicable legal framework is found in the Legal Education Act, the KenyaSchool of Law Act, and the relevant Regulations. **Section 17(2) of the Kenya School of Law Act** requires the School to satisfy itself that an applicant meets the prescribed admission criteria before admission is granted. Further, **section 28 of the Act** empowers the Board to make regulations governing the administration of the School. **Regulation 5 of the Kenya School of Law (Training Programmes) Regulations** provides that only applicants who meet the relevant admission requirements under the Act and the Regulations qualify for admission. 4. The Tribunal is guided by the decision in **Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 others (Civil Appeal E472 of 2021) [2022] KECA 1132 (KLR) (21 October 2022) (Judgment)** where the Court of Appeal emphasised that an applicant's academic qualifications must be considered in determining eligibility for admission to the ATP. All applicants seeking admission must therefore satisfy the same regulatory standards. 5. All applications for admission to the School must be considered against thesame standards set by the Council. In **Butime Tom V Muhumuza David and Another Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2011** to which we were referred by counsel for the appellant, it was held that when regulating a profession, the **same standards should apply to all persons** seeking to enter into the profession. 6. In the present case, although the Appellant produced provisional results slipsindicating completion of his studies, it is not disputed that he had not formally graduated and had not produced a Bachelor of Laws degree certificate at the time of registration. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent was entitled to verify compliance with the admission requirements before completing the registration process. The requirement for production of academic credentials was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable but was consistent with the Respondent's statutory mandate to ensure that only qualified applicants are admitted into the ATP. 7. The Tribunal further finds that the Respondent acted within its statutoryobligations under **section 17 of the Kenya School of Law Act** and the applicable Regulations in requiring proof of the Appellant's academic qualifications before registration. The Appellant's reliance on provisions that have since been invalidated cannot assist his case. 8. The Tribunal also accepts the Respondent's position that the Appellant'sadmission was not revoked. Rather, the Respondent deferred his registration to the subsequent academic year pending production of the requisite academic documents. The evidence shows that the Appellant remains eligible to pursue admission once he graduates and obtains the necessary proof of qualification. 9. The Tribunal is also mindful of the need to maintain uniform admissionstandards for all applicants seeking entry into the legal profession. Accepting provisional academic documents in place of final proof of qualification may undermine the integrity of the admission process and expose the system to risks of irregular admission. 10. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant did not satisfy the admissionrequirements for registration into the Advocates Training Programme for the 2026/2027 academic year. The Respondent had a lawful basis for requiring proof of graduation and acted within its statutory mandate in deferring the Appellant's registration. The decision complained of was therefore lawful, reasonable, and procedurally proper. The Appellant may apply for admission in the 2027/2028 academic year upon obtaining the requisite academic credentials. **Whether the revocation of the appellants’ admission violated their right to legitimate expectation?** 1. The Appellant contends that he had a legitimate expectation of registrationafter being admitted to the Advocates Training Programme and being granted extensions of time to pay the requisite fees. He argues that the Director's communications indicated that payment of KShs. 80,000 was the only outstanding requirement. 2. The doctrine of legitimate expectation protects expectations arising from clearrepresentations made by a public authority. However, such expectation must be lawful and consistent with the applicable statutory framework. 3. While the Tribunal finds that the Respondent's conduct may have created anexpectation that the Appellant would be registered upon payment of the required fees, that expectation could not override the statutory admission requirements. It is undisputed that the Appellant had neither graduated nor produced a formal LLB degree certificate at the time of registration. 4. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent acted within its statutory mandate inrequiring proof of qualification before registration. The decision to defer the Appellant's registration was made in compliance with the applicable legal framework and in furtherance of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession. 5. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not violate theAppellant's legitimate expectation. The decision to deny registration for the 2026/2027 academic year and defer the Appellant's admission to a subsequent intake was lawful and reasonable. **Whether the Respondent infringed the Appellant’s rights including her right to fair administrative action.** 1. The Appellant contends that the Respondent violated his rights under **Articles 43(1)(f) and 47** of the Constitution by declining to register him for the Advocates Training Programme. 2. Having considered the evidence and submissions of the parties, the Tribunalfinds no basis for this claim. Under **section 107 of the Evidence Act**, the burden of proving the alleged violation rested on the Appellant, which burden was not discharged. 3. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent acted within its statutory mandate inassessing the Appellant's eligibility for registration. The decision to deny registration was based on the Appellant's failure to produce proof of graduation and the requisite academic credentials. The Respondent communicated the reasons for its decision and deferred, rather than revoked, the Appellant's admission. 4. Further, the right to education must be exercised within the framework of thelaws regulating legal education. As held in **Hesbon Matoke Nyagaka Vs Council of Legal Education (Petition No. 6 of 2019) [2019] eKLR**, the right to education is subject to the standards and qualifications prescribed by law, and no violation arises where an applicant fails to meet those requirements. 5. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent acted lawfully,reasonably, and in the exercise of its statutory mandate. The Appellant's rights under Articles 43 and 47 of the Constitution were not violated. ## Disposition In the premises, the Tribunal makes the following determinations: 1. The Appeal by the Appellant, **DAVID NJENGA,** challenging the decision of the 1st and 2nd Respondents dated **25th February 2026** declining his registration into the Advocates Training Programme (ATP) for the 2026/2027 academic year is hereby dismissed. 2. A declaration is hereby issued that the Appellant did not meet the admissionrequirements for registration into the Advocates Training Programme for the 2026/2027 academic year, having not graduated and failed to produce a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree certificate at the time of registration. The Appellant shall be at liberty to apply for admission upon graduation and production of the requisite academic credentials. 3. Each party shall bear its own costs of the Appeal. 4. Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal to the High Court on apoint of law pursuant to section 38(1) of the Legal Education Act, 2012. **It is so ordered by the Legal Education Appeals Tribunal.** **HON. JULIANA NJIRIRI - CHAIR** **HON. JOSHUA NGULU- MEMBER** **HON. FELIX OKETCH - MEMBER** **HON. MOSES MUNOKO – MEMBER** **HON. GODANA YATANI – MEMBER** **DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.** SIGNED BY/FOR: | | | --- | | **★ THE JUDICIARY OF KENYA ★** **HON. JULIANA WAMAITHA** **NJIRIRI** **FELIX OTIENO OKETCH** **MOSES SITATI MUNOKO JOSHUA MBINDA NGULU** Legal Education Appeals Tribunal Legal Education Appeals Tribunal Date: 2026-06-17 13:06:44 |