I have considered the certificate of urgency, the ex parte chamber summons, the statutory statement and the verifying affidavit, all dated 15 June 2026, together with the annextures. The Applicant acknowledges that he unsuccessfully pursued this claim before the Legal Education Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). This court has established that the matter in dispute being the alleged revision or alteration of the ex parte Applicant’s marks for ATP 108 – Commercial Transactions – from 58 to 48 was the subject of Legal Education Appeal No. E027 of 2023 where the Tribunal rendered a determination dismissing the Applicant’s claim. (See, Ong’uti v Council for Legal Education; Kenya School of Law (Interested Party) [2023] KELEAT 648 (KLR) ).
Pursuant to Section 38(1) of the Legal Education Act, the proper recourse was for the Applicant to prefer an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal. Consequently, this court is not satisfied that the Applicant has established basis for grant of leave to apply for judicial review. The application is an abuse of the court process and the same is hereby dismissed.
Pursuant to Section 38(1) of the Legal Education Act, the proper recourse was for the Applicant to prefer an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal. Consequently, this court is not satisfied that the Applicant has established basis for grant of leave to apply for judicial review. The application is an abuse of the court process and the same is hereby dismissed.