[2017] KEHC 2658 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 545 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF THE LAW REFORM ACT CHAPTER 26 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA, THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT CHAPTER 21 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA AND ALL OTHER ENABLING PROVISIONS OF LAW.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ADMISSION TO THE ADVOCATES TRAINING PROGRAMME

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY KENNEDY ODUOR OMONDI FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION OF 14TH OCTOBER 2016 AND KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW.

BETWEEN

REPUBLIC………..………………………………………...APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION ……....…1ST RESPONDENT

KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW ….……………...........2ND RESPONDENT

KENNEDY ODUOR OMONDI…...…………..EX-PARTE APPLICANT

JUDGMENT

1. By a notice of motion dated 28th December 2016 filed in court on 29th December 2016 pursuant to leave granted on 15th December 2016, the exparte applicant Kennedy Oduor Omondi seeks from this court the following orders:

a. That the court do issue an order of certiorari to remove into the High Court and quash the decision of the Council of Legal Education contained in their letters dated 14th October 2016 and 29th October 2016 refusing/rejecting and or failing to recognize the applicant’s Bachelor’s of Law degree thereby denying the applicant admission into the Advocates Training programme at the Kenya School of Law.

b. That the Honourable court be pleased to issue an order of mandamus directed at the 1st respondent do reverse its decision of refusing/rejecting and or failing to recognize the applicant’s Bachelors of Law Degree and compel the 1st respondent to recognize the applicant’s Bachelor of Law degree and hence allow the applicant to be admitted at the Kenya School of Law to pursue the Advocates Training Programme for the year 2017/2018.

c. Those costs of the application be provided for.

2. The notice of motion is supported by the affidavit sworn by the exparte applicant Kennedy Oduor Omondi verifying the facts and the statutory statement all accompanying the chamber summons for leave dated 7th November 2016.

3. The exparte applicant’s case against the two respondents namely, the Council of Legal Education and Kenya School of Law is that the applicant is a holder of an LLB Bachelors of Laws degree from the Catholic University of East Africa having so qualified and graduated in 2014.

4. That prior to joining Catholic University of East Africa in 2011 he had sat for the International General Certificate of Secondary Education at St Christopher’s Secondary School and obtained a certificate in 2010. He then joined Marist International University College, a constituent college of Catholic University of East Africa and successfully pursued a pre- university programme for one year.

5. Upon qualifying with an LLB degree in 2014, the applicant applied to be enrolled into the Advocates Training programme (ATP) at the Kenya School of Law but in a letter dated 12th January 2015 the Kenya School of Law rejected his application for reasons that the applicant had not availed his IGCSE ‘A’ level.

6. The exparte applicant claims that he consulted the office of the Academic Manager at the Kenya School of Law and one Mr Mutua advised him that he needed to do either ‘A’ level or a diploma in law which the applicant complied with by pursuing ‘A’ level Certificate between January 2015 and June 2016.

7. After getting the ‘A’ level Certificate in 2016, the applicant again applied to the Kenya School of Law for admission to the Advocates Training programme but the respondents rejected his application claiming that the applicant had obtained the ‘A’ level certificate post the LLB degree qualification and that he therefore did not qualify to be admitted into an LLB degree programme in the first place hence he could not qualify to be admitted into the Advocates Training programme.

8. The applicant maintains that he is qualified to be admitted into the Advocates Training programme as he has satisfied all the conditions for the admission into the Advocates Training programme.

9. It is claimed that the respondent’s action is arbitrary and unfair and hence amounts to an abuse and improper exercise of authority and clearly frustrates the applicant’s legitimate expectation of fair play as other students from the Catholic University of East Africa have and continued to be admitted to the Kenya School of Law.

10. It is alleged that the respondent’s refusal to recognize he applicant’s LLB degree without considering his pre- university programme is outrageous, absurd and irrational, harsh, and unfair to the applicant who diligently studied and worked hard and obtained an LLB degree from a licensed Legal Education provider in expectation of joining the Kenya School of Law because the decision by the respondents locks out the applicant from pursuing his professional ambition of becoming an advocate.

11. The exparte applicant annexed copies of his documents in the form of certificates and letters from the respondents as exhibits.

12. The 1st respondent filed grounds of opposition dated 28th March 2017 contending that the exparte applicant did not meet the minimum requirements for admission into the LLB programme as stipulated in Regulation 16 of the Council of Legal Education (Accreditation of Legal Education Institutions) Regulations, 2009) made under Cap 16 A Laws of Kenya (CLE Act ).

13. Further, that the applicant did not meet the minimum requirements for admission into Advocate Training Programme in contravention of the law.

14. That the exparte applicant did not have an advanced level of 2 principal passes or its equivalent before admission for the LLB Programme, hence, he was not qualified to be admitted into the Advocate Training programme.

15. According to the 1st respondent, the council of Legal Education is a creature of the law established for purposes of regulation of Legal Education in Kenya and for purposes of attaining highest legal education standards in Kenya, hence, enjoined by law to enforce the law equally without favour or inconsistency.

16. The 1st respondent further stated that there is no ground advanced to quash the decision of the 1st respondent to enforce the law; that this court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the 1st respondent to violate the law; that the court cannot issue a writ of mandamus against a public authority to perform its functions in a particular way if statute gives discretion to the public authority and therefore the court cannot arrogate itself of the functions of the public authority; and that this court should uphold and not violate the law.

17. The 2nd respondent the Kenya School of Law did not file any response to the notice of motion.

18. The parties’ respective advocates filed written submissions to canvass the notice of motion. The applicant’s submissions were filed on 27th January 2017 whereas the 1st respondent relied fully on the grounds of opposition filed on 29th March 2017 with the authorities filed in support of its grounds of opposition.

19. According to the exparte applicant’s submissions dated 26th January 2017 reiterating his grounds in support of the motion as contained in the statutory statement, the applicant was qualified to do an LLB programme and to apply to join the Advocates Training Programme and that as he acted on the advise of the respondents hence the council of Legal Education cannot renege on their word .

20. It was submitted that the applicant applied to be admitted into the Advocates Training Programme based on the pre- university Certificate from the Marist International college (MIC) which the respondents have not considered.

21. Reliance was placed on Section 8(3) of the Legal Education Act on the functions and duties of the Council of Legal Education. Relying on Moi University v Council of Legal & Another [2010] e KLR it was submitted that the Council of Legal Education has no power to purport to accredit an institution of higher learning in the position of the Moi University hence the council cannot purport to take an action whose effect would be to withdraw such accreditation.

22. The applicant submitted that the same position was followed in Mount Kenya University vs Council of Legal Education & Another [2010] e KLR. It was submitted that the Council of Legal Education having licensed Catholic University of East Africa to offer LLB degree programmes, Council of Legal Education could not reject the LLB degree of the exparte applicant. It was submitted that the Council of Legal Education should have given a credit transfer and acknowledged the applicant’s pre- university studies as required under the Council of Legal Education Act.

23. Reliance was placed on Rahab Wanjiru Nguguna vs Inspector General of Police & Another [2013] e KLR where it was held that the court is called upon to intervene in situations where authorities and persons act in bad faith, abuse of power, fail to take into account relevant considerations in the decision making or taking into account irrelevant considerations or act contrary to legitimate expectations.

24. Further reliance was placed on Nabulime Miriam & 16 others vs Council of Legal Education & 5 Others [2016] e KLRwhere the court held , inter alia, that the Kenya School of Law must adhere to the guidelines made by the Council of Legal Education. It was therefore submitted that the court should allow the application as prayed with costs.

25. The 1st respondent did not file any submissions but the grounds of opposition were couched in detailed submissions form. The 1st respondent relied on its grounds of opposition filed on 29th March 2017 with the authorities attached thereto including Kenya National Examination Council vs Republic Exparte Kemunto Regina Ouro [2010] e KLR CAwhere the Court of Appeal held inter alia:

“……..in view of the above rule, mandamus could not properly issue. It is against the law t require an authority to do what is contrary to the law. Mandamus issues to compel performance of a public duty imposed by law. The law does not mandate the council to act against its rules.”

26. Further reliance was placed on Kenya National Examination Council vs Republic Exparte Geofrey Gathenji Njoroge & 9 others[1997] e KLR where Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition VOL 1 at page 111 paragraph 90 was quoted that where a statute, which imposes a duty leaves a discretion to the mode of performing the duty in the hands of the party on whom the application is laid, a mandamus cannot command that duty in question to be carried out in a specific way.”

27. Further reliance was placed on Eunice Cecilia Mwikali Maema V Council of Legal Education & 2 Others [2013] e KLRciting Susan Mungai vs Council of Legal Education Petition 152/2011to the effect that the Council has the power to set standards to ensure that the highest professional standards are maintained in the profession and it is not for the court to be concerned with efficaciousness of the decision made pursuant to the regulations.”

DETERMINATION

28. I have considered the foregoing and in my view the issues for determination are whether the applicant is entitled to the Judicial Review orders sought; what orders should this court make and who should bear costs of this application.

29. On whether the exparte applicant is entitled to the Judicial Review orders sought, of certiorari and mandamus, the exparte applicant claims that he possesses an LLB degree from the Catholic University of Eastern Africa(CUEA) in 2014 which then qualifies him to be admitted into an Advocates Training Programme with the 2nd respondent Kenya School of Law.

30. He claims that prior to joining the Catholic University of East Africa, he had sat for the International General Certificate of Secondary Education at St Christopher’s Secondary School in 2010. After that, he joined Marist International University College, a constituent college of Catholic University of East Africa and successfully pursued a pre-university programme for one year hence he met all the requirements for an LLB training and therefore the respondents have no reasons why they cannot admit him to the Advocates Training Programme.

31. According to the exparte applicant, upon presentation of his academic qualifications to the Kenya School of Law, he was advised by a Mr Mulwa, a manager that he ( the applicant) needed to do either an ‘A’ level or a diploma in law for him to qualify for Advocates Training Programme and that the applicant complied with the advise and pursued an ‘A’ level certificate between January 2015 and June 2016 after which he approached Kenya School of Law for admission into the Advocates Training Programme but that the respondents rejected his application claiming that the ‘A’ level certificate had been obtained post the LLB degree hence, he did not in the first instance, qualify for an LLB degree programme and therefore he did not qualify to be admitted into the Advocates Training Programme.

32. The applicant believes that he is qualified to be admitted into the Advocates Training Programme and that the respondent’s refusal to admit him is unfair, abuse of power and improper exercise of authority and clearly frustrates the applicant’s legitimate expectations of fair play as other students from Catholic University of East Africa have continued to be admitted into the Advocates Training Programme.

33. It is claimed by the applicant that the actions by the respondents are absurd, irrational, harsh and unfair and locks out the applicant from pursuing his professional ambition of becoming an advocate.

34. According to the respondent’s, the exparte applicant could not be qualified to pursue an LLB degree prior to obtaining the ‘A’ level certificate. However, the applicant maintains that in any event, he had studied and obtained a pre-university certificate from the Marist International University affiliated to Catholic University of East Africa which the respondents failed to consider.

35. It is not in dispute that as at 2011 when the applicant enrolled into the Catholic University of East Africa for an LLB degree the applicable law was the Council of Legal Education Act (Cap 16 A Laws of Kenya) and the Council of Legal Education ( Accreditation of Legal Education Institutions Regulations, 2009 which set out the minimum criteria for admission to the LLB degree programme and Regulation 18 thereof stipulates that:

“A student shall not be eligible for admission to a legal education training programme under these regulations unless that student has attained the required minimum qualifications set out in the second schedule.”

36. Under the said second schedule on “minimum qualifications” for entry into Legal Education Training Programme, it is stated thus:

“A student shall not be eligible for admission into an Undergraduate Degree Programme unless that student has

a) A degree from a recognized university.

b) At least two principal passes at an advanced level of an equivalent qualification.

c) A mean grade of C+ ( C plus ) in Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) or

d) A diploma of an institution recognized by the commission for Higher Education and the applicant shall have obtained at least credit pass.”

37. From the above provisions of the Law, it is clear That the applicant needed to possess the above as minimum qualifications before enrolling into the LLB programme which would then enable him to be admitted into an Advocates Training Programme.

38. The applicant claims that he had a pre-university certificate from the Marist University College and that in addition, he had sat for an International General Certificate of Secondary Education(IGCSE),ordinary level at St Christopher’s Secondary School and obtained a certificate in 2010. He also obtained a GSE Advanced level qualifications in June 2016 subsequent to his LLB degree from Catholic University of East Africa which was obtained on 3rd October 2014. He claims that this was after being advised by Kenya School of Law Manager.

39. From the above facts, what clearly emerges is that the applicant was admitted into an LLB degree programme at Catholic University of East Africa based on his IGCSE qualifications and a pre-university certificate and not the minimum qualifications stipulated in Regulations 18. The applicant has not shown that at the time he enrolled for the LLB degree programme, he was eligible by either possessing

a) A degree from a recognized university;

b) At least two principal passes at an advanced level or an equivalent qualification.

40. Although the applicant claims that he had a pre-university certificate, he has not claimed or demonstrated that the pre university certificate was recognized as an equivalent qualification to the two principal passes at an advanced level. It is not in dispute that the IGCSE certificate is not an advanced level certificate. It is clearly an ordinary level certificate and moreso the applicant could not, without an advanced level certificate of at least 2 principal passes or its equivalent qualify to be enrolled into an LLB degree programme.

41. The applicant clearly admits that he only obtained an ‘A’ level qualification after the LLB degree and upon being advised by a Kenya School of Law Manager. He does not state that he sought the advise of the said manager or other authority on the minimum requirements prior to enrolling into an LLB degree programme.

42. In my humble view, obtaining an ‘A’ level qualifications ex post the LLB degree could not ameliorate the applicant’s irregular admission into the LLB degree programme.

43. Accordingly, I find no arbitrariness, unfairness or abuse of power on the part of the 1st respondent when in its letter dated 14th October 2016, it advised the applicant that it had declined to recognize that he had an ‘A’ level qualifications or LLB degree qualification to enable him be admitted into the Advocates Training Programme to qualify as an advocate.

44. In my humble view, one would only be eligible to be admitted into Advocates Training Programme if the council was satisfied that the minimum qualifications for enrolment into an LLB degree programme were fully met as stipulated in Regulation 18 reproduced herein above. The council , in my view, had no discretion to admit him into an Advocates Training Programme as a student who did not meet the minimum qualifications for admission into an LLB degree programme.

45. The respondents are statutory bodies and are bound by the statutory provisions. In the letter of 12th January 2015 advising the applicant by the Kenya School of Law that his appeal against non admission to the Advocates Training Programme was not successful owing to the reason that he did not avail his IGCSE ‘A’ level certificate, the applicant has not shown that the 2nd respondent was acting irrationally, illegally or otherwise since annexture 2 has not been shown to be the equivalent of an ‘A’ level certificate contemplated under Regulation 18.

46. In addition, annexture ‘E’ which is a general certificate of education was awarded pursuant to the June 2016 examination which was long after the applicant had obtained an LLB degree.

Albeit the applicant claims that he was advised by a Kenya School of Law Manager to obtain a diploma in law or an ‘A’ level qualifications before applying for the ATP, in my humble view, such matters of academic qualifications are not to be treated lightly or casually by way of taking an oral advise from some manager sitting in some office.

47. It was incumbent upon the applicant to seek authoritative advise from relevant authorities and obtain such advise in writing on what was expected of him in terms of qualifications and moreso, read and understand the statutory minimum qualifications before embarking on a journey to seeking to be enrolled into an LLB degree programme.

48. It is for the above reasons that I find no merit in the complaint by the exparte applicant and find that the respondents acted within the law in rejecting the exparte applicants application for enrolment into an Advocate Training Programme.

49. Indeed, there is no prayer seeking to declare the Regulations 18 of the relevant provisions cited above unconstitutional. I am fortified by the decision in Eunice Cecilia Mwikali Maema v Council of Legal Education & 2 Others [2013] e KLRwhere the Court of Appeal upheld the decision by Lenaola J ( as he then was made on 15th March 2013 where the learned judge had held inter alia:

“…….once the petitioner admitted that legal notice No. 169 of 2009 was the applicable law then by dint of legal Notice No. 170 of 2009, no substantive right due to her was affected. Had the converse been true, this court would have happily enforced those rights without much action but the law as I understand it is that the Council of Legal Education acted within the law and there is no prayer made that law should be declared unconstitutional.”

50. Albeit the applicant argued that the decision by the respondents was unfair because there are other students who were admitted to study LLB by Catholic University of East Africa, the applicant in my view has overstretched his argument in the sense that the respondents have not claimed that they cannot admit him into Advocates Training Programme because he studied at Catholic University of East Africa. They have declined his admission into the Kenya School of Law for the Advocates Training Programme because he did not and has not shown to the satisfaction of the respondents and to this court that he had met the minimum requirements for admission into the LLB degree programme which would then enable him to be enrolled into the Advocates Training Programme.

51. The issue before this court is not that of accreditation of CUEA but of the applicant failing to meet, prima facie, the minimum academic qualifications and requirements for enrolment into LLB degree programme, and whether the applicant could first qualify as an LLB graduate, proceed to obtain his ‘A’ level qualifications then apply to be admitted into the Advocates Training Programme.

52. The First Schedule to the 2009 Regulations under L.N No. 169 of 2009 is clear that ( paragraph 5 a and b (i) (ii).

“A person shall not be eligible for admission for the Post Graduate Diploma (Advocate Training Programme) unless that person has-

a) Passed the relevant examination of any recognized University in Kenya , he holds or has become eligible for the conferment of the Bachelor of Laws Degree(LLB of that university;

b) Passed the relevant examinations of a University, University College or other institutions prescribed by the Council, he holds or has become eligible for the conferment of the Bachelor of Laws Degree (LLB) in the grant of that University, University College or other institution, had prior to enrolling at that university, university college or other institution .

c) Attained a minimum entry requirements for admission to a university in Kenya; and

d) A minimum grade B (plain) in English language and a mean grade of C (plus) in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education or its equivalent.

53. Analyzing the above provisions of the law in line with the decision in Eunice Cecilia Mwikali Maema V Council of Legal Education & 2 Others(supra) case, the Court of Appeal had this to say:

“Regulation 5 of the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009 required a person wishing to be admitted for any course of study at the school to make an application to the school in form Kenya School of Law No. 1 set out in the Third Schedule to those Regulations. The application was to be accompanied by attachments that were to include: “ academic transcripts for the relevant qualifying examinations” and “ academic certificate or other academic award.”

On a plain reading of paragraph 5 of the First Schedule reproduced above, it would seem that provided an applicant was a holder or eligible to hold an LLB Degree from any recognized University in Kenya or other institution prescribed by the council having passed the relevant examinations of such university or institution and met the other criteria set out there under, such applicant would be eligible for admission to the advocates training programme, irrespective of the content.

However, exercising its powers under Section 14 of the repealed Council of Legal Education Act, the Council published the Council of Legal Education (Accreditation of Legal Education Institutions) Regulations, 2009 under Legal Notice No. 170 of 2009 applicable to any institution offering or intending to offer Legal Education in Kenya.

Those Regulations required, under a threat of sanction, any institution offering or intending to offer legal education in Kenya to apply, within 6 months of commencement of those Regulations for accreditation or confirmation by the Council that the institution met the training standards prescribed by the Council.

However, for those wishing to gain admission to the advocates training programme at the school, it seems to us that the Council, by making reference to “relevant qualifying examination” under Regulation 5(2) (a) of the Council of Legal Education (KSL) Regulations, 2009 was not merely concerned, as the appellant would have us believe, with passing of relevant examinations of a university prescribed by the Council.

We are unable to appreciate the argument that the council may on the one hand determine certain subjects to be core for the purposes of accrediting an institution and at the same time not consider them as core for purposes of qualifying for admission to the advocates training programme at the school.”

54. Applying the principles espoused in the above Court of Appeal case to this case, it is clear that for the applicant’s application to be admitted to the Kenya School of Law for Advocates Training Programme, he was duty bound to demonstrate inter alia, that he had attained the minimum entry requirements for admission to a university in Kenya as stipulated in paragraph 5(b) (i) of Part II of the First Schedule of the Regulations on admission requirements into the Advocates Training Programme. It was not enough for him to demand admission to Advocates Training Programme on the basis of merely being a holder of an LLB degree alone, irrespective of whether he met the minimum requirements for admission into the LLB degree programme. And it was upon him to ensure that before and not after undertaking the LLB degree programme which would lead to his admission into Advocates Training Programme, he met or fulfilled all those minimum entry requirements.

55. In the EuniceCecilia Mwikali Maema v Council Legal Education & 2 Others (supra) case, the Court of Appeal, though dealing with the issue of ‘core units’ held that ……

“ we are unable to appreciate the argument that the council may on the one hand determine certain subjects to be core for purposes of accrediting an institution and at the same time not consider them as core for purposes of qualifying for admission to the Advocates Training Programme at the school.”

56. In my humble view, it is abundantly clear that a degree from any recognized university that was obtained or acquired prior to the graduand meeting the minimum entry requirements for entry into such degree programme cannot be said to be a degree that automatically entitles the graduand to enroll into the Advocates Training Programme at the Kenya School of Law. That degree must for purposes of admission to the Advocates Training Programme at the Kenya School of Law be held against the standards set by the council as stipulated by law.

57. In Butime Tom v Muhumuza David & Another , Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2011, the court held that when regulating a profession, the same standard should apply to all persons seeking to enter into the profession.

58. In this case, the applicant claimed that other graduates of Catholic University of East Africa had been admitted into Advocates Training Programme. However he did not demonstrate that the said applicants who were not even named were admitted into the Advocates Training Programme under the same circumstances as his. It is therefore my humble view that to exclude the applicant from complying with the minimum requirements for admission into the LLB degree and hence the Advocates Training Programme would be tantamount to propagating discrimination and allowing every Tom Dick and Harry to demand admission into the LLB programmes and the ATP whether they qualified to be admitted or not.

59. The Court of Appeal in Eunice Mwikali (supra) case refused to be entreated by the appellant that having graduated with an LLB degree without having done the core units, she should be admitted to the school and be required to study the remaining core subjects there as the school no longer offered them.

60. The Court of Appeal in the above Eunice Mwikali case agreed with Lenaola J ( as he then was ) that albeit the respondent had not pleaded Regulation 170/2009, the court could not disregard it as it was a matter of law.

61. The Court of Appeal maintained and I agree that the Council has the power to set standards to ensure that the highest professional standards are maintained in the profession and it is not for the court to be concerned with the efficaciousness of the decision made pursuant to the Regulations.

62. I reiterate that in the instant case the applicant obtained an LLB degree from Catholic University of East Africa prior to attaining the minimum statutory academic qualifications required under the Council of Legal Education Act and Regulations and it was only after his learning that he could not be admitted into the Advocates Training Programme without meeting those minimum requirements that he registered and sat for his GCE ‘A’ level certificate. He then presented his credentials to the Council of Legal Education but the latter rejected them on account that he could not qualify retrospectively.

63. I fully agree with the Respondents position taken that there are standards regulating the legal profession which standards should apply to all persons seeking to enter into the profession and to exempt or exclude the applicant from complying with those requirements would be to propagate unfairness and discrimination. The applicant clearly, was admitted into the LLB degree with only IGCSE qualifications since he did not demonstrate that his pre university certificate annexture ‘B’ was equivalent to ‘A’ level qualification and if that were not the case, I see no reason why he proceeded to sit for his GCE ‘A’ level after the LLB degree, in order to qualify for the ATP.

64. The exparte applicant’s counsel in his submissions wavered into non contentious issues of whether or not Catholic University of East Africa was licensed or accredited to offer legal education training which I find irrelevant as there was no contention that Catholic University of East Africa was not accredited or licensed to offer LLB degree programmes.

65. The Council of Legal Education has not sought to suspend or stop the accredited university institution from offering LLB degree programme as was the case in Moi University vs Council of Legal Education &Another [2016] e KLRcited by the exparte applicant. Furthermore, the applicable law as at 2011 when the applicant enrolled himself for LLB degree was the Cap 16A – Council of Legal Education Act hence the eligibility criteria for admission to Advocates Training Programme would be as per Regulation 18 of the Council of Legal Education ( Accreditation of Legal Education Institutions- Regulations, 2009 as read with the Second Schedule paragraph 2(a) (b) ( c ) and (d) which set out the minimum entry criteria for admission to the LLB programme

66. The applicant neither proved that he had any or all the requirements stipulated in Regulation 2(a)–(d) of the said Regulation.

67. For those reasons, I find and hold that the prayers sought in the notice of motion seeking for Judicial Review orders of certiorari and mandamus are not available to the exparte applicant as he has not demonstrated that the respondent’s are in error in declining to allow him to be enrolled in the Advocates Training Programme or that their decisions are in any way illegal, irrational or laced with procedural impropriety or that they failed to take into account relevant factors or took into account irrelevant factors.

68. Neither has the exparte applicant shown that he had a legitimate expectation to be admitted to the Advocates Training programme and which expectation has been breached by the respondents. Legitimate expectations must be soundly grounded on the law. The applicant failed to demonstrate that he met the minimum requirements for admission into the LLB degree programme hence he cannot claim legitimate expectation to be enrolled into the Advocates Training programme. The exparte applicant’s expectations in my view are illegitimate and unrealistic. They are contrary to public policy. His qualifications are after the fact and therefore he cannot be allowed to benefit from a procedural impropriety that he perpetuated.

69. Consequently, I find that the notice of motion dated 28th December 2016 is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed .

70. I order that each party shall bear their own costs of these Judicial Review proceedings.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 11th day of October 2017.

R.E.ABURILI

JUDGE

In the Presence of:

N/A for exparte applicant

N/A for Respondents

CA: Mike