Introduction
1. The Petition before the court is dated 9th March 2022. By the said Petition, the Petitioner seeks declarations that the Petitioner's rights under Articles 43(1)(f) and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, have been contravened, orders of certiorari to quash the decisions of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, an order of mandamus compelling the 1st Respondent to admit the Petitioner to the Advocates Training Program, damages, and costs.
2. The dispute stems from the Petitioner's academic history. He undertook his O-Level and A-Level studies under the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE)/GCE curriculum at Jaffery Academy, Mombasa. He obtained a GCSE certificate in 2015 and an Advanced Level certificate in 2017. He then proceeded to the University of Nairobi, where he graduated in December 2021 with an LLB degree, Second Class Honours, Upper Division.
3. The 1st Respondent advertised vacancies for the 2022/2023 Advocates Training program in December 2021. Prospective applicants whose secondary qualifications were not issued by the 2nd Interested Party were required to have those qualifications equated by the 2nd Respondent.
4. The Petitioner complied with the requirement and submitted both his O-Level and A-Level certificates to the 2nd Respondent. By a letter dated 22nd December 2021, the 2nd Respondent equated the Petitioner's A-Level certificate to a KCSE mean grade of C, with the first equated subject recorded as "Law," while the O-Level/IGCSE certificate was not considered. Subsequently, the Petitioner applied for the Advocates Training Programme. The 1st Respondent rejected the application on the ground that his qualifications fell below the statutory minimum.
5. The Petitioner contends that these decisions were unlawful for several reasons: that the 2nd Respondent had no legal mandate to equate his secondary school qualifications, that mandate lying exclusively with the 2nd Interested Party, KNEC; that the equation was made during the currency of a court order restraining the 2nd Respondent from implementing Part III of its subsidiary Regulations relating to the recognition, equation and approval of foreign qualifications; and that the equation, even if permissible, was conducted irrationally and incompletely.
6. The 1st and 2nd Respondents objected the Petition.The 1st Respondent filed a replying affidavit deponed to by Mr Fredrick Muhia dated 8th November 2023 and submissions dated 5th January 2024. The 2nd Respondent filed a replying affidavit deponed to by Dr Juma Mukhwana dated 10th May 2022 and written submissions dated 7th April 2026, respectively.
The Petitioner's Case
7. The Petitioner filed written submissions dated 18th July 2024 in support of the Petition. The submissions framed four issues for determination: (i) whether the equating of his secondary qualifications was mandatory despite his LLB from a local university; (ii) whether the 2nd Respondent had the legal authority to equate those qualifications; (iii) whether his rights under Articles 43(1)(f) and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, were violated; and (iv) whether he is entitled to the reliefs sought.
8. The Petitioner submitted that Section 8 of the Kenya National Qualifications Framework Act, No. 22 of 2014, sets out the functions of the 2nd Respondent and that these functions do not include the equating of academic or professional qualifications. To the extent that subsidiary Regulations made under the Act purport to confer that function on the 2nd Respondent, the Petitioner submitted that the Regulations are inconsistent with the parent Act, contrary to section 31(b) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, Cap 2, and to the decision of the Court in Wavinya Ndeti v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & 4 others [2014] KECA 629 (KLR), which held that subsidiary legislation cannot repeal or contradict express provisions of its enabling Act.
9. The Petitioner further submitted that the power to equate certificates issued by accredited foreign examining bodies with qualifications is conferred squarely and exclusively on the 2nd interested party under section 10(2)(e) of the Kenya National Examinations Council Act. This was affirmed in Dennis Kabuaya Mucheke v Kenya National Examination Council & 2 others [2018] KEHC 4096 (KLR), where Chacha Mwita J. (as he then was) held that the 2nd interested party has a statutory obligation to equate foreign certificates, including those obtained locally.
10. Even if the 2nd Respondent, KNQA, possessed a residual equation mandate under Regulation 10(1)(a) of the Kenya National Qualifications Framework Regulations, the Petitioner submitted that this mandate is confined to the equation of professional qualifications obtained by a Kenyan who has undergone training at a foreign education institution. This is not the position in the Petition before the Court. The Petitioner’s certificates are basic-education certificates obtained from Jaffery Academy, Mombasa, a local institution that delivers a foreign curriculum within Kenya.
11. The Petitioner further submitted that, at the time his qualifications were being equated, a court order was in place, issued on 17th November 2021 in JR Application No. E136 of 2021, which expressly barred the 2nd Respondent from implementing or executing Part III of its Regulations dealing with the recognition, equation and approval of foreign qualifications.
12. It was submitted that the order was in rem and therefore binding on the 2nd Respondent irrespective of privity. It was further submitted, without prejudice to the foregoing, that the manner of equating was in any event irrational and incomplete. The 2nd Respondent equated only the A-Level certificate, ignoring the O-Level/IGCSE certificate, and in doing so listed "Law" as the first subject equated to a KCSE grade, notwithstanding that Law is not and has never been examined as a subject at KCSE level. To the Petitioner, this is "so outrageous in defiance of logic" as to meet the Wednesbury threshold, as restated in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935.
13. On this basis, the Petitioner urged the Court to find that his rights to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and to education under Article 43(1)(f) of the Constitution of Kenya,2010 were violated.
The Respondents’ Case
14. The 1st Respondent, through Dr. Henry Mutai, submitted that the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 must be read as a whole, and that paragraph 1(a) is not a route to admission free of any KCSE-equivalent requirement; rather, paragraph 1(b)'s conditions, namely a minimum entry requirement for university admission, a mean grade of C (plus) with a B (plain) in English or Kiswahili at KCSE "or its equivalent", and a pass in the pre-Bar examination, inform the interpretation of the Schedule as a whole.
15. Reliance was placed on the Court of Appeal's decision in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 others [2022] KECA 1132 (KLR), where the appellate court held that a trial court's interpretation that applicants were eligible for admission merely because they had completed LLB studies, without regard to KCSE grades, was erroneous, unrealistic and discriminatory towards those who sat KCSE, and that the KCSE examination (or its equivalent) remains the key entry point regardless of subsequent university attainment.
16. The 1st Respondent submitted that it had no discretion to waive or amend the statutory equivalence requirement, that it acted on the equation provided by the 2nd Respondent, and that its decision was fair, procedurally sound and made without unreasonable delay, so that no violation of Article 47(1) or Article 43(1)(f) occurred.
17. The 2nd Respondent submitted that a constitutional petition must meet the precision threshold set in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] KEHC 30 (KLR) and reaffirmed in Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2013] KECA 445 (KLR). It further submitted that the Petitioner's allegations against it were generalised and unsupported by cogent evidence, falling short of the standard applied in Consumer Federation of Kenya v Toyota Motors Corporation & 4 others [2022] KEHC 15459 (KLR).
18. The 2nd Respondent submitted that its mandate to coordinate and harmonize qualifications under the Kenya National Qualifications Framework Act is operationalized by Regulation 14 of the Kenya National Qualifications Framework (General) Regulations, which empowers it to equate qualifications for recognition and comparability; that subsidiary legislation is presumed to complement rather than contradict its parent Act; and that the Petitioner had neither challenged the validity of the Regulations nor displaced that presumption.
19. The 2nd Respondent relied on Maalim v Kenya National Qualifications Authority (Petition E124 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 2002 (KLR) to support the proposition that its duty is to ensure a verifiable framework for the comparability of qualifications, and on Dry Associates Ltd v Capital Markets Authority & another [2012] KEHC 5568 (KLR) and Pitch Investors Limited v Capital Markets Authority [2025] KEHC 7928 (KLR) to support the principle that courts owe deference to technical statutory bodies in the absence of proof of arbitrariness. It was further submitted that, having voluntarily invoked KNQA's jurisdiction, the Petitioner could not approbate and reprobate by later disputing its legitimacy merely because the outcome was unfavourable.
Issues for Determination
20. I have considered the pleadings, the affidavits on record and the rival submissions. In my view, the following issues arise for determination:
(a) Whether equation of the Petitioner's secondary school qualifications to a KCSE-equivalent grade was a mandatory precondition to admission notwithstanding having an LLB degree from a local university;
(b) Whether the 2nd Respondent had the legal mandate to conduct the equation and whether the equation was vitiated by illegality and unreasonableness; and
(c) Whether the Petitioner's rights under Articles 43(1)(f) and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya,2010 were violated.
Analysis and Determination
Whether the equation of the Petitioner's secondary school qualifications to a KCSE-equivalent grade was a mandatory precondition to admission notwithstanding having an LLB degree from a local university
21. The provisions of Clause 5(b) of the First Schedule to the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009, and of the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act require an applicant to demonstrate a mean grade of C (plus) with a B (plain) in English Language or Kiswahili at KCSE "or its equivalent".
22. The Court of Appeal's decision in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 others [2022] KECA 1132 (KLR) on the construction of the First Schedule is binding on this court. The decision rejected the proposition that completion of an LLB, without more, dispenses with the KCSE-equivalence requirement, holding that such a construction is unrealistic, unreasonable, and discriminatory against candidates who sat the KCSE in Kenya.
23. The use of the word "equivalent" necessarily contemplates a mechanism for equation wherever an applicant's secondary qualification is not one issued by the 2nd Interested Party. This Court therefore agrees with both the Respondents' and the Petitioner’s submissions on this point: equation of the Petitioner's secondary qualifications was a mandatory precondition to his admission into the Advocates Training Programme.
Whether the 2nd Respondent had the legal mandate to conduct the equation and whether the equation was vitiated by illegality and unreasonableness
24. Now that the court has found that the equation was mandatory, it then raises the question of how it was to be done and who was to conduct it.
25. Section 10(2)(g) of the Kenya National Examinations Council Act vests the 2nd Interested Party with the power to equate certificates issued by accredited foreign examining bodies with the qualifications awarded by the Council. This power extends to foreign qualifications obtained locally. See Dennis Kabuaya Mucheke v Kenya National Examination Council & 2 others [2018] KEHC 4096 (KLR). This is precisely the Petitioner's position. He obtained his IGCSE and A-Level certificates at Jaffery Academy in Mombasa.
26. Section 8 of the Kenya National Qualifications Framework Act, operationalized by Regulation 14 of the Kenya National Qualifications Framework (General) Regulations, and separately, Regulation 10(1)(a) of the earlier Kenya National Qualifications Framework Regulations pleaded by the Petitioner, empowers the 2nd Respondent to equate the qualifications of "a Kenyan who has undergone training at a foreign education institution and has attained professional qualifications."
27. Regulation 10(1)(a), as pleaded by the Petitioner and not disputed by the 2nd Respondent, limits KNQA's equation mandate to (i) a Kenyan, (ii) who trained, (iii) at a foreign education institution, and (iv) who holds professional qualifications. None of these four conditions is met here. The Petitioner's O-Level and A-Level certificates are basic secondary certificates, not professional qualifications. Jaffery Academy, where he sat these exams, is, under the 2nd Respondent's own definition of an "education institution", located in Kenya and is a local institution that simply teaches a foreign curriculum, not a foreign institution.
28. It follows that even if, without deciding, KNQA's Regulations validly confer an equation function upon it, that function did not extend to the equation undertaken in this case. The proper and, on the material before me, exclusive statutory avenue for equating the Petitioner's IGCSE and A-Level certificates to a KCSE-equivalent grade lay with the 2nd Interested Party under section 10(2)(g) of its Act. I so find and hold. Accordingly, the 2nd Respondent's equation of 22nd December 2021 was issued without lawful authority.
29. It is not disputed by either Respondent in their submissions that the equation of 22nd December 2021 was made during the currency of an order issued on 17th November 2021 in JR Application No. E136 of 2021, expressly restraining the 2nd Respondent from implementing or executing Part III of its Regulations relating to the recognition, equation and approval of foreign qualifications.
30. Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 binds all persons and state organs to adhere to the rule of law when making, applying and interpreting law and policy. A statutory body that purports to exercise, during the subsistence of a court order restraining it from doing so, the functions so restrained, acts unlawfully within the meaning of Article 47(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. In the absence of any rebuttal on this issue from the 2nd Respondent, this court accepts the Petitioner's uncontroverted evidence and finds that the equation was, in addition, made in defiance of a subsisting court order.
31. This court in applying the test restated in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935 and adopted in Republic v Officer In Charge of Station, Karen & another Ex parte Jared Isoe [2021] KEHC 6069 (KLR), an administrative decision must be rational, in the sense that the evidence and information before the decision-maker must rationally support the decision reached. The equation letter of 22nd December 2021 equated the Petitioner's A-Level certificate and omitted the O-Level/IGCSE certificate, rendering the equation incomplete on its face.
32. Surprisingly, on the evidence before the court, the first subject recorded as equated to a KCSE grade was "Law", a subject that is not and has never been examined at KCSE level in Kenya. An equation exercise that purports to convert a subject not offered at the comparative level cannot be said to rest on any rational or evidentiary foundation.
33. I have considered the submissions of the 2nd Respondent urging judicial deference to technical bodies, as articulated in Dry Associates Ltd v Capital Markets Authority & another [2012] KEHC 5568 (KLR) and Pitch Investors Limited v Capital Markets Authority [2025] KEHC 7928 (KLR), and the caution against courts substituting their own views for those of professional bodies expressed in Daniel Ingida Aluvaala & another v Council of Legal Education & another [2017] KEHC 2775 (KLR).
34. This court agrees with the findings of the said decisions. I must, however, state that the dictum therein applies to the genuine exercise of technical judgment within a body's lawful mandate. However, the dictum is not applicable where the body acts outside its mandate altogether, in defiance of a court order, or on a footing that no sensible person applying his mind to the exercise could have reached.
35. From the analysis hereinabove, in the court's view, the equation was unreasonable and irrational within the meaning of Article 47(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and section 4(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Whether the Petitioner's rights under Articles 43(1)(f) and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 were violated
36. Article 47(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 guarantees every person the right to an administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. This constitutional imperative is given effect by section 4(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
37. At paragraph 21 of its decision in Judicial Service Commission v Mutava & another [2015] KECA 741 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that the duty to act lawfully and reasonably goes to the substantive justice of a decision, while the duties of expedition, efficiency and fair procedure go to its procedural justice. For the reasons already given, the 2nd Respondent's decision of 22nd December 2021 was substantively unlawful for want of mandate, for having been made in defiance of a subsisting court order, and for want of a rational evidentiary foundation. I find that the 2nd Respondent thereby violated the Petitioner's right to fair administrative action under Article 47(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
38. On the material before the court, the 1st Respondent retained no discretion, consistently with the binding authority in NRB Civil Appeal No. E472 of 2021, to waive the statutory KCSE-equivalence requirement, and it acted, without unreasonable delay, on the equation certificate placed before it by the 2nd Respondent.
39. I am not satisfied that the 1st Respondent's reliance on a facially valid equation certificate, subsequently found to have been unlawfully issued by another statutory body, amounts to a violation of Article 47 or Article 43(1)(f) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, by the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent's rejection letters of 9th February 2022 and 2nd March 2022 must nonetheless fall because they were founded on and are the direct legal consequence of an equation that this Court has found to be a nullity. A decision built upon a void foundation cannot itself stand, and the letters must accordingly be quashed.
40. Under Article 43(1)(f) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, the right to education, while fundamental, is, as both Respondents correctly submit, not a right to admission to a specific professional program without compliance with lawfully prescribed entry criteria. The Petitioner has not been denied access to education as such; he has been denied a fair and lawful process for determining whether he meets a criterion that this Court has already held, under binding Court of Appeal authority, to be mandatory.
41. The appropriate vindication of the Petitioner’s position lies in the correction of the unlawful process, not in a freestanding declaration that his right to education was violated. I decline to make a separate finding of violation under Article 43(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Final Orders
42. Based on the foregoing, the following orders commend themselves to me and the same are hereby issued:
(a) A declaration is hereby made that the 2nd Respondent had no lawful mandate to equate the Petitioner's O-Level/IGCSE and A-Level secondary school certificates to a KCSE-equivalent grade;
(b) An order of certiorari is hereby issued quashing the 2nd Respondent's equation letter/certificate dated 22nd December 2021;
(c) An order of certiorari is hereby issued quashing the 1st Respondent's decisions contained in the letters dated 9th February 2022 and 2nd March 2022 rejecting the Petitioner's application for admission to the Advocates Training Program;
(d) A declaration is hereby made that the 2nd Respondent violated the Petitioner's right to fair administrative action under Article 47(1) of the Constitution;
(e) The Petitioner is at liberty to submit his secondary school certificates to the 2nd Interested Party for equation to a KCSE-equivalent grade within thirty (30) days of this judgment, and the 1st Respondent shall, within thirty (30) days of receipt of any equation certificate so issued, reconsider the Petitioner's application for admission to the Advocates Training Programme on its merits and in accordance with the law;
(f) The 2nd Respondent shall pay the Petitioner general damages in the sum of Kes 300,000/- for violating his rights under Article 47(1) of the Constitution; and
(g) The Petitioner is awarded costs of the petition to be borne by the 2nd Respondent.
43. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 31st day of July 2026.
1. The Petition before the court is dated 9th March 2022. By the said Petition, the Petitioner seeks declarations that the Petitioner's rights under Articles 43(1)(f) and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, have been contravened, orders of certiorari to quash the decisions of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, an order of mandamus compelling the 1st Respondent to admit the Petitioner to the Advocates Training Program, damages, and costs.
2. The dispute stems from the Petitioner's academic history. He undertook his O-Level and A-Level studies under the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE)/GCE curriculum at Jaffery Academy, Mombasa. He obtained a GCSE certificate in 2015 and an Advanced Level certificate in 2017. He then proceeded to the University of Nairobi, where he graduated in December 2021 with an LLB degree, Second Class Honours, Upper Division.
3. The 1st Respondent advertised vacancies for the 2022/2023 Advocates Training program in December 2021. Prospective applicants whose secondary qualifications were not issued by the 2nd Interested Party were required to have those qualifications equated by the 2nd Respondent.
4. The Petitioner complied with the requirement and submitted both his O-Level and A-Level certificates to the 2nd Respondent. By a letter dated 22nd December 2021, the 2nd Respondent equated the Petitioner's A-Level certificate to a KCSE mean grade of C, with the first equated subject recorded as "Law," while the O-Level/IGCSE certificate was not considered. Subsequently, the Petitioner applied for the Advocates Training Programme. The 1st Respondent rejected the application on the ground that his qualifications fell below the statutory minimum.
5. The Petitioner contends that these decisions were unlawful for several reasons: that the 2nd Respondent had no legal mandate to equate his secondary school qualifications, that mandate lying exclusively with the 2nd Interested Party, KNEC; that the equation was made during the currency of a court order restraining the 2nd Respondent from implementing Part III of its subsidiary Regulations relating to the recognition, equation and approval of foreign qualifications; and that the equation, even if permissible, was conducted irrationally and incompletely.
6. The 1st and 2nd Respondents objected the Petition.The 1st Respondent filed a replying affidavit deponed to by Mr Fredrick Muhia dated 8th November 2023 and submissions dated 5th January 2024. The 2nd Respondent filed a replying affidavit deponed to by Dr Juma Mukhwana dated 10th May 2022 and written submissions dated 7th April 2026, respectively.
The Petitioner's Case
7. The Petitioner filed written submissions dated 18th July 2024 in support of the Petition. The submissions framed four issues for determination: (i) whether the equating of his secondary qualifications was mandatory despite his LLB from a local university; (ii) whether the 2nd Respondent had the legal authority to equate those qualifications; (iii) whether his rights under Articles 43(1)(f) and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, were violated; and (iv) whether he is entitled to the reliefs sought.
8. The Petitioner submitted that Section 8 of the Kenya National Qualifications Framework Act, No. 22 of 2014, sets out the functions of the 2nd Respondent and that these functions do not include the equating of academic or professional qualifications. To the extent that subsidiary Regulations made under the Act purport to confer that function on the 2nd Respondent, the Petitioner submitted that the Regulations are inconsistent with the parent Act, contrary to section 31(b) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, Cap 2, and to the decision of the Court in Wavinya Ndeti v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & 4 others [2014] KECA 629 (KLR), which held that subsidiary legislation cannot repeal or contradict express provisions of its enabling Act.
9. The Petitioner further submitted that the power to equate certificates issued by accredited foreign examining bodies with qualifications is conferred squarely and exclusively on the 2nd interested party under section 10(2)(e) of the Kenya National Examinations Council Act. This was affirmed in Dennis Kabuaya Mucheke v Kenya National Examination Council & 2 others [2018] KEHC 4096 (KLR), where Chacha Mwita J. (as he then was) held that the 2nd interested party has a statutory obligation to equate foreign certificates, including those obtained locally.
10. Even if the 2nd Respondent, KNQA, possessed a residual equation mandate under Regulation 10(1)(a) of the Kenya National Qualifications Framework Regulations, the Petitioner submitted that this mandate is confined to the equation of professional qualifications obtained by a Kenyan who has undergone training at a foreign education institution. This is not the position in the Petition before the Court. The Petitioner’s certificates are basic-education certificates obtained from Jaffery Academy, Mombasa, a local institution that delivers a foreign curriculum within Kenya.
11. The Petitioner further submitted that, at the time his qualifications were being equated, a court order was in place, issued on 17th November 2021 in JR Application No. E136 of 2021, which expressly barred the 2nd Respondent from implementing or executing Part III of its Regulations dealing with the recognition, equation and approval of foreign qualifications.
12. It was submitted that the order was in rem and therefore binding on the 2nd Respondent irrespective of privity. It was further submitted, without prejudice to the foregoing, that the manner of equating was in any event irrational and incomplete. The 2nd Respondent equated only the A-Level certificate, ignoring the O-Level/IGCSE certificate, and in doing so listed "Law" as the first subject equated to a KCSE grade, notwithstanding that Law is not and has never been examined as a subject at KCSE level. To the Petitioner, this is "so outrageous in defiance of logic" as to meet the Wednesbury threshold, as restated in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935.
13. On this basis, the Petitioner urged the Court to find that his rights to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and to education under Article 43(1)(f) of the Constitution of Kenya,2010 were violated.
The Respondents’ Case
14. The 1st Respondent, through Dr. Henry Mutai, submitted that the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012 must be read as a whole, and that paragraph 1(a) is not a route to admission free of any KCSE-equivalent requirement; rather, paragraph 1(b)'s conditions, namely a minimum entry requirement for university admission, a mean grade of C (plus) with a B (plain) in English or Kiswahili at KCSE "or its equivalent", and a pass in the pre-Bar examination, inform the interpretation of the Schedule as a whole.
15. Reliance was placed on the Court of Appeal's decision in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 others [2022] KECA 1132 (KLR), where the appellate court held that a trial court's interpretation that applicants were eligible for admission merely because they had completed LLB studies, without regard to KCSE grades, was erroneous, unrealistic and discriminatory towards those who sat KCSE, and that the KCSE examination (or its equivalent) remains the key entry point regardless of subsequent university attainment.
16. The 1st Respondent submitted that it had no discretion to waive or amend the statutory equivalence requirement, that it acted on the equation provided by the 2nd Respondent, and that its decision was fair, procedurally sound and made without unreasonable delay, so that no violation of Article 47(1) or Article 43(1)(f) occurred.
17. The 2nd Respondent submitted that a constitutional petition must meet the precision threshold set in Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic [1979] KEHC 30 (KLR) and reaffirmed in Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 others [2013] KECA 445 (KLR). It further submitted that the Petitioner's allegations against it were generalised and unsupported by cogent evidence, falling short of the standard applied in Consumer Federation of Kenya v Toyota Motors Corporation & 4 others [2022] KEHC 15459 (KLR).
18. The 2nd Respondent submitted that its mandate to coordinate and harmonize qualifications under the Kenya National Qualifications Framework Act is operationalized by Regulation 14 of the Kenya National Qualifications Framework (General) Regulations, which empowers it to equate qualifications for recognition and comparability; that subsidiary legislation is presumed to complement rather than contradict its parent Act; and that the Petitioner had neither challenged the validity of the Regulations nor displaced that presumption.
19. The 2nd Respondent relied on Maalim v Kenya National Qualifications Authority (Petition E124 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 2002 (KLR) to support the proposition that its duty is to ensure a verifiable framework for the comparability of qualifications, and on Dry Associates Ltd v Capital Markets Authority & another [2012] KEHC 5568 (KLR) and Pitch Investors Limited v Capital Markets Authority [2025] KEHC 7928 (KLR) to support the principle that courts owe deference to technical statutory bodies in the absence of proof of arbitrariness. It was further submitted that, having voluntarily invoked KNQA's jurisdiction, the Petitioner could not approbate and reprobate by later disputing its legitimacy merely because the outcome was unfavourable.
Issues for Determination
20. I have considered the pleadings, the affidavits on record and the rival submissions. In my view, the following issues arise for determination:
(a) Whether equation of the Petitioner's secondary school qualifications to a KCSE-equivalent grade was a mandatory precondition to admission notwithstanding having an LLB degree from a local university;
(b) Whether the 2nd Respondent had the legal mandate to conduct the equation and whether the equation was vitiated by illegality and unreasonableness; and
(c) Whether the Petitioner's rights under Articles 43(1)(f) and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya,2010 were violated.
Analysis and Determination
Whether the equation of the Petitioner's secondary school qualifications to a KCSE-equivalent grade was a mandatory precondition to admission notwithstanding having an LLB degree from a local university
21. The provisions of Clause 5(b) of the First Schedule to the Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009, and of the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act require an applicant to demonstrate a mean grade of C (plus) with a B (plain) in English Language or Kiswahili at KCSE "or its equivalent".
22. The Court of Appeal's decision in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 others [2022] KECA 1132 (KLR) on the construction of the First Schedule is binding on this court. The decision rejected the proposition that completion of an LLB, without more, dispenses with the KCSE-equivalence requirement, holding that such a construction is unrealistic, unreasonable, and discriminatory against candidates who sat the KCSE in Kenya.
23. The use of the word "equivalent" necessarily contemplates a mechanism for equation wherever an applicant's secondary qualification is not one issued by the 2nd Interested Party. This Court therefore agrees with both the Respondents' and the Petitioner’s submissions on this point: equation of the Petitioner's secondary qualifications was a mandatory precondition to his admission into the Advocates Training Programme.
Whether the 2nd Respondent had the legal mandate to conduct the equation and whether the equation was vitiated by illegality and unreasonableness
24. Now that the court has found that the equation was mandatory, it then raises the question of how it was to be done and who was to conduct it.
25. Section 10(2)(g) of the Kenya National Examinations Council Act vests the 2nd Interested Party with the power to equate certificates issued by accredited foreign examining bodies with the qualifications awarded by the Council. This power extends to foreign qualifications obtained locally. See Dennis Kabuaya Mucheke v Kenya National Examination Council & 2 others [2018] KEHC 4096 (KLR). This is precisely the Petitioner's position. He obtained his IGCSE and A-Level certificates at Jaffery Academy in Mombasa.
26. Section 8 of the Kenya National Qualifications Framework Act, operationalized by Regulation 14 of the Kenya National Qualifications Framework (General) Regulations, and separately, Regulation 10(1)(a) of the earlier Kenya National Qualifications Framework Regulations pleaded by the Petitioner, empowers the 2nd Respondent to equate the qualifications of "a Kenyan who has undergone training at a foreign education institution and has attained professional qualifications."
27. Regulation 10(1)(a), as pleaded by the Petitioner and not disputed by the 2nd Respondent, limits KNQA's equation mandate to (i) a Kenyan, (ii) who trained, (iii) at a foreign education institution, and (iv) who holds professional qualifications. None of these four conditions is met here. The Petitioner's O-Level and A-Level certificates are basic secondary certificates, not professional qualifications. Jaffery Academy, where he sat these exams, is, under the 2nd Respondent's own definition of an "education institution", located in Kenya and is a local institution that simply teaches a foreign curriculum, not a foreign institution.
28. It follows that even if, without deciding, KNQA's Regulations validly confer an equation function upon it, that function did not extend to the equation undertaken in this case. The proper and, on the material before me, exclusive statutory avenue for equating the Petitioner's IGCSE and A-Level certificates to a KCSE-equivalent grade lay with the 2nd Interested Party under section 10(2)(g) of its Act. I so find and hold. Accordingly, the 2nd Respondent's equation of 22nd December 2021 was issued without lawful authority.
29. It is not disputed by either Respondent in their submissions that the equation of 22nd December 2021 was made during the currency of an order issued on 17th November 2021 in JR Application No. E136 of 2021, expressly restraining the 2nd Respondent from implementing or executing Part III of its Regulations relating to the recognition, equation and approval of foreign qualifications.
30. Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 binds all persons and state organs to adhere to the rule of law when making, applying and interpreting law and policy. A statutory body that purports to exercise, during the subsistence of a court order restraining it from doing so, the functions so restrained, acts unlawfully within the meaning of Article 47(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. In the absence of any rebuttal on this issue from the 2nd Respondent, this court accepts the Petitioner's uncontroverted evidence and finds that the equation was, in addition, made in defiance of a subsisting court order.
31. This court in applying the test restated in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935 and adopted in Republic v Officer In Charge of Station, Karen & another Ex parte Jared Isoe [2021] KEHC 6069 (KLR), an administrative decision must be rational, in the sense that the evidence and information before the decision-maker must rationally support the decision reached. The equation letter of 22nd December 2021 equated the Petitioner's A-Level certificate and omitted the O-Level/IGCSE certificate, rendering the equation incomplete on its face.
32. Surprisingly, on the evidence before the court, the first subject recorded as equated to a KCSE grade was "Law", a subject that is not and has never been examined at KCSE level in Kenya. An equation exercise that purports to convert a subject not offered at the comparative level cannot be said to rest on any rational or evidentiary foundation.
33. I have considered the submissions of the 2nd Respondent urging judicial deference to technical bodies, as articulated in Dry Associates Ltd v Capital Markets Authority & another [2012] KEHC 5568 (KLR) and Pitch Investors Limited v Capital Markets Authority [2025] KEHC 7928 (KLR), and the caution against courts substituting their own views for those of professional bodies expressed in Daniel Ingida Aluvaala & another v Council of Legal Education & another [2017] KEHC 2775 (KLR).
34. This court agrees with the findings of the said decisions. I must, however, state that the dictum therein applies to the genuine exercise of technical judgment within a body's lawful mandate. However, the dictum is not applicable where the body acts outside its mandate altogether, in defiance of a court order, or on a footing that no sensible person applying his mind to the exercise could have reached.
35. From the analysis hereinabove, in the court's view, the equation was unreasonable and irrational within the meaning of Article 47(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and section 4(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
Whether the Petitioner's rights under Articles 43(1)(f) and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 were violated
36. Article 47(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 guarantees every person the right to an administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. This constitutional imperative is given effect by section 4(1) of the Fair Administrative Action Act.
37. At paragraph 21 of its decision in Judicial Service Commission v Mutava & another [2015] KECA 741 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that the duty to act lawfully and reasonably goes to the substantive justice of a decision, while the duties of expedition, efficiency and fair procedure go to its procedural justice. For the reasons already given, the 2nd Respondent's decision of 22nd December 2021 was substantively unlawful for want of mandate, for having been made in defiance of a subsisting court order, and for want of a rational evidentiary foundation. I find that the 2nd Respondent thereby violated the Petitioner's right to fair administrative action under Article 47(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
38. On the material before the court, the 1st Respondent retained no discretion, consistently with the binding authority in NRB Civil Appeal No. E472 of 2021, to waive the statutory KCSE-equivalence requirement, and it acted, without unreasonable delay, on the equation certificate placed before it by the 2nd Respondent.
39. I am not satisfied that the 1st Respondent's reliance on a facially valid equation certificate, subsequently found to have been unlawfully issued by another statutory body, amounts to a violation of Article 47 or Article 43(1)(f) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, by the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent's rejection letters of 9th February 2022 and 2nd March 2022 must nonetheless fall because they were founded on and are the direct legal consequence of an equation that this Court has found to be a nullity. A decision built upon a void foundation cannot itself stand, and the letters must accordingly be quashed.
40. Under Article 43(1)(f) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, the right to education, while fundamental, is, as both Respondents correctly submit, not a right to admission to a specific professional program without compliance with lawfully prescribed entry criteria. The Petitioner has not been denied access to education as such; he has been denied a fair and lawful process for determining whether he meets a criterion that this Court has already held, under binding Court of Appeal authority, to be mandatory.
41. The appropriate vindication of the Petitioner’s position lies in the correction of the unlawful process, not in a freestanding declaration that his right to education was violated. I decline to make a separate finding of violation under Article 43(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Final Orders
42. Based on the foregoing, the following orders commend themselves to me and the same are hereby issued:
(a) A declaration is hereby made that the 2nd Respondent had no lawful mandate to equate the Petitioner's O-Level/IGCSE and A-Level secondary school certificates to a KCSE-equivalent grade;
(b) An order of certiorari is hereby issued quashing the 2nd Respondent's equation letter/certificate dated 22nd December 2021;
(c) An order of certiorari is hereby issued quashing the 1st Respondent's decisions contained in the letters dated 9th February 2022 and 2nd March 2022 rejecting the Petitioner's application for admission to the Advocates Training Program;
(d) A declaration is hereby made that the 2nd Respondent violated the Petitioner's right to fair administrative action under Article 47(1) of the Constitution;
(e) The Petitioner is at liberty to submit his secondary school certificates to the 2nd Interested Party for equation to a KCSE-equivalent grade within thirty (30) days of this judgment, and the 1st Respondent shall, within thirty (30) days of receipt of any equation certificate so issued, reconsider the Petitioner's application for admission to the Advocates Training Programme on its merits and in accordance with the law;
(f) The 2nd Respondent shall pay the Petitioner general damages in the sum of Kes 300,000/- for violating his rights under Article 47(1) of the Constitution; and
(g) The Petitioner is awarded costs of the petition to be borne by the 2nd Respondent.
43. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 31st day of July 2026.