Wanjohi v Kenya School of Law (Appeal E046 of 2026) [2026] KELEAT 7 (KLR) (21 July 2026) (Judgment)

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: LEGAL EDUCATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: LEAA/E046/2026 ALEX WANJOHI VS KENYA SCHOOL OF LAW # JUDGMENT **A. Introduction and Background** 1. Before the Tribunal is the appellant’s memorandum appeal dated 4th May 2026 supported by the affidavit of Alex Wanjohi, seeking amongst other prayers to quash the respondent’s decisions through letters dated 5th December, 2025 and 19th January 2026, and declare him eligible for admission to the Advocates Training Programme (ATP) and order the respondent to admit him to the 2027/2028 ATP. 1. The appellant has grounded his appeal on various fronts: that therespondent erred on relying on section 16 and the second schedule of the Kenya School of Law Act that was invalidated by Court of Appeal **in Stephen Nikita Otinga Vs Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 30 Others [2025] KECA 466(KLR),** the respondent failed to apply the Legal Education Act, which is the framework legal education and training in Kenya and that the respondent’s decision was irrational ,procedurally unfair and unreasonable. 1. The appellant has attached several documents to his supporting affidavit, whose annexture **“AWM-1”,** a KCSE certificate shows that he obtained a mean grade of C (plain) and grade C+ (plus) in both English and Kiswahili. The appellant sat for his Kenya Certificate of Secondary Examination in 2018 before he joined Mount Kenya University (MKU) for diploma in law and subsequently graduated with an LLB degree in law in 2025 from the same institution. His application for admission to the ATP was declined on sole ground that he did not meet the minimum requirement in accordance to section 16 and the second schedule of the KSL Act, hence, this appeal. 1. The respondent through a replying affidavit sworn on 5th June, 2026 by Lawrence Ndirangu, opposed the appeal on various fronts. One, that it possesses exclusive power under section 16 of the KSL Act in matters admission to the ATP. Two, the deponent avers that the Tribunal is deprived of jurisdiction to deal with matters emanating from KSL Act as its powers are limited to matters within the Legal Education Act, which grants the Tribunal Jurisdiction. 1. Mr Ndirangu further, avers that it is upon satisfaction that an eligibleapplicant satisfies the requisite qualifications of eligibility under section 16 as read with paragraph 1 of the second schedule of the KSL Act, which requires a mean grade of C+ (plus) and grade B either in English or Kiswahili in KCSE, that the said applicant can be admitted to the school. 1. Finally, the respondent reiterates that the KSL Act does not have provisionfor academic progression and thus, allowing people with unrelated degree prior to joining LLB is circumventing the statutory provision and that the refusal of admission of the appellant was legal. 1. In a further affidavit sworn on 10th June, 2026, the appellant annexed academic transcripts from MKU to prove that he went through classes and studied the relevant subjects. **B. Parties Submission** **The Appellant** 1. The appellant filed the submissions dated 12th June, 2026 and submits that the tribunal is vested with jurisdiction while relying on the case of **Kenya School of Law-vs Gachoki & 2 Others [2024] KEHC 528 (KLR)** 1. He submits that the respondent erred in relying on 16 and the secondschedule of the KSL Act, which required a mean grade of C+ and grade B in either English or Kiswahili and that the said provision was nullified by the Court of Appeal in **Stephen Nikita Otinga Vs Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 30 Others [2025] KECA 466(KLR**. This case reiterated that LEA is the framework of legal Education and in training Kenya, including the ATP, and the appellant insists that this decision binds the respondent. He further submits that he was admitted for Diploma in May 2019 when the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations 2016 (the 2016 Regulations) were operational. 1. The appellant argues that his rights had crystallized under the 2016 Regulations before they were nullified by the Court of Appeal in **Javan Kiche Otieno & Another –v- Council of legal Education [2021] eKLR**. To further buttress this point, the appellant relies on **Kenya School of Law –v- Akomo &41 Others {2022} KECA 1132(KLR)** and **Njenga-v- Kenya School of Law & Another (2025) KELEAT 2KLR**. 1. The appellant argued on another limb of legitimate expectation. He statesthat he joined MKU with the hope that the 2016 regulations provided for academic progression from Diploma level with a mean grade of C(plain) and grade C+(plus) in English, which he had, then expected that he could subsequently progress to degree level. He argues the advert from the respondent always referred to the 2016 regulations. To reinforce this front, the appellant relies in **Kenya Revenue Authority & 2 Others –v- Darasa investment Ltd [2018] KECA 358(KLR)** and **Richard Leakey &2 Others-vSamson Kipkoech Chemai [2019] KECA 700(KLR)**, which cases courts held that legitimate expectation arises either from representation or promise made and/or has been enjoyed in the past. 1. Finally, the appellant argues that his right to a fair administrative action, right to equality and education under Articles 17, 27 and 43(1)(f) respectively of the constitution were infringed **Respondent** 1. On the other hand, the respondent in submissions dated 26th June, 2026, raises four issues for determination: whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction, whether the double standard in admission qualification is discriminatory or justifiable, whether its decision to refuse appellant’s admission into the ATP was a breach of legitimate expectation and whether academic progression is applicable. 1. It relies on Black’s Law Dictionary definition, the Halsbury’s Law ofEngland, 4th edition, volume 10 paragraph 314 and article 159 of the constitution as well as section 31 of LEA in arguing what constitutes jurisdiction. 2. It also relies on **Law Society of Kenya v Centre for Human Rights and Democracy & 13 Others [2013] eKLR, Bakeries Limited v Rent Restriction Tribunal and Kiriti Raval Nairobi HCMCC No 246 of 1981** andthe **Samuel Kamau Macharia Case,** where Supreme Court held that **“a court jurisdiction flows from either the constitution or statute or both, this 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 on it by law**” 1. Also relied on **Motor Vessel “Lilian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989) eKLR, Kenya Pipeline Limited v Hyosung Ebara Company Ltd & 2 Others (2012) eKLR** and **HCCA/E002/2023 Kenya School of Law v Isaiah Munoru Mucheke,** to conclude that this Tribunal Lacks Jurisdiction. 2. Secondly, the respondent argues that the Tribunal should work with theordinary meaning of words and grammar while interpreting the statute, unless the same demonstrate absurdity or repugnancy. It relies in the court of appeal case in **Nairobi civil appeal No E472 of 2021.** 3. On legitimate expectation, the respondent submits that none was createdbetween it and the appellant, and hence existed. 4. It further argues that it acted within the law, specifically, article 47 of theConstitution and that it never violated the appellant’s right to education under article 43(1)(f). 5. Lastly, on academic progression, the respondent reiterates that theappellant did not qualify for admission to the Advocates Training Programme on account of academic progression. The respondent relies on **Stephen Otinga Nikita v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 30 Others,** which the Court of Appeal directed the interested party to establish regulations to govern the ATP. **ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION** 1. whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction 2. Whether the appellant can legitimately benefit from the 2016 Regulationsbased on crystallized action 3. Whether the respondent’s decision is legally valid and reasonable **Whether the Tribunal has Jurisdiction?** 1. It is the respondent’s argument in its replying affidavit that the Tribunallacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal. The appellant in his submissions reiterates that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction originates from section 31(1) of the Legal Education Act. 2. Jurisdiction basically is the power of a court of law or tribunal to inquireinto facts by applying the law and granting the requisite relief in a case. Section 31(1) of LEA mandates this Tribunal to hear and determine appeals emanating from the Council or any other committee. The section provides 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. It is well settled that jurisdiction of a court can flow from the Constitutionor statute or both as held 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. See also **Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lilian S” vs. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR,** 2. In upholding this Tribunal’s jurisdiction, Majanja, J in **Kenya School of Law –vs- Gachoki & 2 Others [ civil appeal E062 of 2022(2024}** held 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. Seethis Tribunal’s decisions**: 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 -v-Kenya School of Law & Another [2025] KELEAT 2(KLR).** 2. We therefore find that this Tribunal is properly clothed with jurisdiction tohandle this appeal. **Whether the appellant can legitimately benefit from the 2016 Regulations** 1. The appellant has vividly argued that he joined the Diploma course at MKUin 2019, a time when the 2016 Regulations were allegedly operational. He submits that the said regulations were nullified in 2021 by the Court of Appeal in **Javan Kiche case**. He relied on the **Akomo case** to buttress the crystallized action, where after the nullification, the court of appeal stated that its decision did not apply retrospectively- meaning that those who had already joined, could not be affected by the decision. 2. The 2016 Regulations came into force on 06/02/2016. This tribunal isfurther quick to note that unlike the appellant’s misconception that the said regulations were invalidated by the court of appeal in 2021, the 2016 regulations were first nullified by Odero J in the judgement delivered on 30/01/2018 in **Nakuru High Court Petition No 20 of 2016**-**Javan Kiche Otieno v Council of Legal Education**. The court of appeal only upheld the high court’s decision in 2021 in an appeal by Javan Kiche. 3. In **Kenya School Of Law –v- Juma [2025] KEH 19101[KLR]** while addressing the issue of crystallized action in relation to **Javan Kiche case**, Omido,J stated that: **“The decision of Javan Kiche was upheld on appeal by the court of appeal (Musinga, Nambuye & Murgor, JJA) save that the court clarified that the declaration of invalidity would not apply to or affect any actions that had crystallized before the declaration. That then meant that any action that had crystallized between 6th February 2016 being the date the 2016 regulations were gazetted and 30th January 2018 when the declaration of invalidity of the 2016 regulations was made, remained valid under the 2016 Regulations**” 1. In this appeal, the appellant has categorically submitted that he finishedhis KCSE in 2018. It is judicially noted that KCSE exams are undertaken from October of each year and concludes around November. He Further submits at paragraph 43 that he joined MKU for a Diploma in law in May 2019 and admitted for an LLB programme in the same institution in 2021. 2. From the foregoing, it is evident that at the time the appellant wasadmitted for a Diploma in law at MKU, that is in May ,2019, the 2016 regulations had already been invalidated by the Nakuru High court in 30th January 2018 by Odera, J. 3. That being the case, the appellant herein cannot claim crystallizing underthe 2016 regulations on the ground that at the time he joined Diploma at MKU, the said 2016 Regulations had already been nullified. In fact, the 2016 regulations were nullified while the appellant was still in form four, and therefore, this argument cannot succeed. 4. On the other hand, the appellant submitted that he legitimately expectedto transition based on the 2016 regulations because of accreditation of MKU as a legal education provider by the Council of Legal Education and provision of section 8(3)(c) of LEA. Of course, legitimate expectation based on the 2016 regulations fails having found that the appellant cannot benefit from the crystallized actions. Further, the accreditation of MKU did not create any legitimate expectation, since any applicant has to comply with the minimum grading for the course applied for. Therefore, by mere fact that you have joined an accredited legal education provider institution, is not reason enough to create a legitimate expectation. 5. Therefore, there was no crystallized action that can benefit the appellantnor legitimately expect protection from the nullified 2016 regulations, which commenced and ended before he joined MKU for a Diploma in Law. As stated earlier, at the time the appellant was completing KSCE, the 2016 Regulations had been nullified. As for applicability of section 8(3)(c) of LEA, this will be discussed in the next issue below. **Whether the respondent’s decision based on section 16 and second schedule of KLS Act was validly reasonable and legal** 1. The appellant submitted that the respondent relied on the nullified section16 as read with the second schedule of the KSL Act to deny him admission to the ATP the said section required a mandatory mean grade of C+(plus) and grade B either English or Kiswahili. 2. This is well evident from the respondent’s replying affidavit, that thedeponent admitted to applying section 16 and second schedule in declining the appellant’s application for admission to the ATP. In paragraph 6 of the replying affidavit, the respondent states that: **“THAT I am advised by my advocates on record which advise verily believe to be true, that matters of admission to the respondents advocates Training Programme are still exclusively provided for under section 16 of the Kenya school of Law Act (Cap 16 C)”** 1. At paragraph 9 of the same replying affidavit, the deponent for therespondent avers that: **“The appellant was found not eligible per eligibility criteria as provided for under section 16, read with paragraph 1 of the** **second schedule of the Kenya School of Law (CAP 16)** 1. The respondent concludes by stating that the appellant did not meet thesection 16 second schedule requirements of C+ (plus) mean grade and grade B in either English or Kiswahili. 2. Indeed, from the appellant’s annexture **“A WM-1**”, the KCSE certificate, it is evident that he obtained a mean grade of C (plain) and grade C+(Plus) in both English and Kiswahili. This was an outright disqualification for direct joining of the university for an LLB degree under the nullified section 16 and the second schedule of the KSL Act. 3. Unfortunately, section 16 as read with paragraph 1 of the second scheduleof the KSL Act became like a cult to the respondent, which has deliberately declined to believe that it was invalidated by the Court of Appeal in the **Otinga case,** a year down the line. The absurdity of this is that the continued reliance on this dead provision of the law, affects innocent students who wish to pursue and advance their legal profession based on alternative pathways. 4. While we agree with the respondent that the KSL Act does not provide foracademic progression, the Court of Appeal in the **Otinga case** was categorical that Legal Education Act is the framework of legal Education and training Kenya, including the ATP. The court stated: **“It is evident that the Legal Education Act is the framework of legal education and training in Kenya, including training in ATP. Consequently, the provisions therein are the ones applicable to all legal training in Kenya including the ATP**”. 1. Therefore, this Tribunal finds that the nullification of section 16 andsecond schedule of the KSL Act did not leave a void in the legal profession, as there exist other alternative criteria of vetting students for admission to the ATP. 2. This was well stated in **Kenya School of Law –vs- Juma [2025] KEHC 19101 (KLR)**, where Omido, J on the issue of diverse paths of admission to the ATP, stated that: **“In my view, as rightfully held by the held by the Tribunal in paragraph 25 and 29 of its judgement, there are various admission criteria to the ATP. The applicable criterion depends on the circumstances of the particular case and the law applicable in those circumstances “** 1. In the appellant’s case, as stated above, he cannot rely on the 2016 Regulations because he finished form four, at the time the said regulations had already been nullified by the court in **Javan Kiche Case (Supra),** which was affirmed by the court of appeal in 2021, at the time he had not graduated with a Diploma in law. 2. Since the appellant failed to get a direct LLB degree entry qualification, herelies on academic progression based on section 8(3)(c) of the LEA which provides that: **“S 8(3) in carrying out its functions under subsection (2) the council shall-** **(c) formulate a system for recognizing prior learning and experience in law to facilitate progression in legal education from lower level of learning to higher levels”** 1. It is this Tribunal’s finding that when the 2016 regulations were nullified,the appellant’s reliance on academic progression now goes back to the initial Regulations, being the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) 2009 Regulations, section 5 (c) which also provided for academic progression. 1. It is clear that the appellant obtained a mean grade of C (plain) and gradesC+ (plus) in both English and Kiswahili. This meets the criteria set out in section 5 (c) of the Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations 2009. The eligibility criteria for admission to the ATP are prescribed under Paragraph 5 of Part II of the First Schedule to the 2009 Regulations. Paragraph 5 provides that a person shall not be eligible for admission to the ATP unless that person has — * 1. ***passed the relevant examination of any recognized universityin Kenya and holds or has become eligible for the conferment of the Bachelor of Laws Degree (LLB) of that university;*** * 1. ***passed the relevant examinations of a prescribed university*** ***or institution, holds or has become eligible for the conferment of the LLB, and had, prior to enrolling at that institution, attained the minimum university entry requirements and a minimum grade of B (plain) in English and a mean grade of C+ in KCSE or its equivalent;*** * 1. ***holds an LLB from a recognized university and attained aminimum grade of C+ in English and a minimum aggregate grade of C (plain) in KCSE, and additionally holds a higher qualification such as 'A' levels, an International Baccalaureate, a relevant Diploma, another undergraduate degree, or has attained a higher degree in law*; or** * 1. ***holds an LLB from a recognized university and attained aminimum grade of C- in English and a minimum aggregate grade of C- in KCSE, and sits and passes the Pre-Bar Examination set by the Council of Legal Education as a precondition for admission*** 1. The appellant graduated in 2021 with a Diploma in Law **(AWM-2)**. He subsequently applied for admission for an LLB degree at Mount Kenya University (MKU), which application was granted as communicated by admission letter dated 01/09/2021 **(AWM-3**). After successful study as evidenced by the attached transcripts, the appellant graduated in 2025 with a Bachelor of Laws Degree **(“AWM-4”)** from the said institution. 2. However, when the appellant applied to the respondent for admission tothe ATP, his application and appeal were declined vide two letters dated 05/12/ 2025 **(AWM-6)** on the ground that: **“Applicant does not meet the prescribed minimum KCSE grades.”** 1. It is based on this rejection that the appellant decided to seek redress inthis Tribunal. 2. It is clear as stated in paragraphs 37 and 38 above that the reasonadvanced by the respondent for rejection of the appellant’s application is solely that he did not meet the KCSE eligibility criteria as required as per section 16 and the second schedule of the KSL Act, which provisions have since been declared null and void by the Court of Appeal. 3. While the KSL Act does not provide for academic progression, the court ofappeal clarified that, the mandate of admission to the ATP is vested with Council of Legal Education (CLE) in accordance with the Legal Education Act. Notwithstanding that the Council of Legal Education is not a party to this appeal; it does not deprive it of the statutory mandate determine the eligibility criteria under section 8(3)(c). 4. From the forgoing, this Tribunal is convinced that the appellant has provedacademic progression and prior learning. His eligibility needed to be assessed in accordance to section 5 (c) of the 2009 Regulation as one of the pathways to the ATP, not the annulled section 16 and the second schedule of the KSL Act. The respondent therefore, acted in futility. **A. Disposition** In the premises, the Tribunal makes the following determinations: 1. The respondent’s letters dated 05/12/2025 and 19/01/2026 denyingthe appellant, **ALEX WANJOHI** admission to the Advocates Training Programme are hereby set aside as the decision was premised on the nullified section 16 and the second schedule of the Kenya School of Law Act. 2. That **ALEX WANJOHI** is eligible for admission to the Advocates Training Programme on account of academic progression under section 8(3)(c) and Regulation 5(c) of the Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations 2009, and the respondent is hereby ordered to admit him forthwith. 3. Right of appeal under section 38 (1) of the Legal Education Act,2012, on points of law in 30 days. 4. Each party shall bear its own costs. **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 21ST DAY OF JULY 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: 2026-08-10 13:41:31 |