1. The matter of admission to the Advocates Training Program (ATP) has been the subject of extensive and repeated litigation before our courts, underscoring the ongoing tension between regulatory rigor and equitable access to legal education. Despite a growing body of jurisprudence, including definitive pronouncements by the Court of Appeal, disputes over the interpretation and application of the governing statutory and regulatory framework persist.
2. This appeal is yet another iteration of this recurring theme. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Respondent and directed that he be admitted to the ATP on the basis of academic progression.
3. The Council of Legal Education is joined to these proceedings as an Interested Party due to its statutory mandate to oversee legal education and set standards for admission to legal training programs, including the Advocates Training Program (ATP).
4. The matter before this Court once again raises critical questions as to the correct interpretation of the minimum entry requirements and the legal effect of academic progression within the framework of the Kenya School of Law Act, the Legal Education Act, and applicable regulations.
5. The Respondent had sat for his KCSE examination in 2010, attaining a mean grade of B- (minus), with a B- in English and C+ in Kiswahili. He subsequently obtained a Diploma in Law from Mount Kenya University in 2014 and was admitted to the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree at the same university on 05th September 2016. He completed the LLB in December 2022.
6. Following his LLB graduation, the Respondent applied for admission to the ATP. However, by a letter dated 04th January 2023, the Appellant declined the application on grounds that the Respondent had not met the minimum qualifications stipulated in the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012, and relevant regulations.
7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 03rd February 2023, asserting that he had achieved academic progression and was therefore entitled to admission under the prevailing legal framework. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the Respondent had met the criteria through progression and directing his admission.
8. The Appellant challenges this decision on grounds that the Tribunal misapplied the relevant statutes and binding precedent, particularly the Court of Appeal’s decision in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others [2022] KECA 1132 (KLR), which it claims clarified the applicable minimum qualifications for admission to the ATP.
Appellant’s Submissions
6. In its written submissions dated 02nd July 2024, the Appellant, Kenya School of Law, reiterated that the determination of eligibility for admission to the Advocates Training Program (ATP) must be firmly grounded in the statutory framework. It placed significant reliance on the Court of Appeal’s binding pronouncement in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others (supra) contending that uniform application of the law is imperative.
7. The Appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred by disregarding the Respondent’s secondary school qualifications. It argued that under the Kenya School of Law Act, an applicant must meet minimum KCSE qualifications, and that the Tribunal’s approach would erroneously permit ATP admission solely based on a university degree, thereby negating the foundational academic thresholds established by law.
8. The Appellant further contended that interpreting the Schedule to allow entry into the ATP without satisfying minimum KCSE scores undermines legal certainty and opens the door to arbitrary standards. It reiterated that eligibility must remain tethered to objectively ascertainable benchmarks.
9. It was the Appellant’s position that such an interpretation renders the statutory scheme incoherent. Emphasis was placed on the need for a purposive and harmonious reading of Paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act, especially the conjunction “or” between subparagraphs (a) and (b). The Appellant cited the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others (supra), which stressed that statutory interpretation must consider both text and context to give effect to legislative intent, with each word in its rightful place.
10. The Appellant warned that if the Tribunal’s interpretation were upheld, it would result in discriminatory and irrational outcome, where applicants with identical university degrees but different secondary school qualifications would be subjected to divergent standards, based solely on whether their degree was local or foreign. Such a result, it submitted, would be contrary to the principles of equality, predictability, and fairness in legal education.
11. To reinforce this position, the Appellant referred to the Court’s unequivocal finding in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others (supra) that
“whether you obtained a degree in a Kenyan or out of a Kenyan university, the basic requirement is the score in one’s KCSE results which should correspond to those cited in the Act.” It argued that the Tribunal’s contrary reading would create irrational disparities among applicants.
12. It was additionally submitted that failure to adhere to this statutory standard could result in discriminatory outcomes, as similarly placed applicants would be treated differently based solely on the geographical origin of their degrees, contrary to the principles of fairness and equality.
13. The Appellant also invoked the High Court’s judgment in Transnational Computer Technology Limited v Attorney General; National Assembly & Another (Interested Parties) (Petition E091 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 3661 (KLR), to stress that the decisions of the Court of Appeal are binding on this Court, and any departure would offend the constitutional norm of judicial hierarchy.
14. In conclusion, the Appellant submitted that the Tribunal misdirected itself by departing from binding precedent and by failing to adhere to the legal thresholds governing admission to the ATP. It urged this Court to find that the Tribunal’s judgment was both legally and procedurally flawed, to set aside the impugned decision, and to allow the appeal in its entirety.
Respondent’s submissions
15. In the Respondent’s submissions dated 16th April 2025, he submitted extensively that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the appeal under Section 31 of the Legal Education Act. He cited the seminal case of Owners of the Motor Vessel Lilian 'S' [1989] KLR 1, where Nyarangi J.A. held:
"Jurisdiction is everything... a court of law downs tools... the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction."
16. Respondent also relied on Samuel Kamau Macharia and Another v Kenya Commercial Bank and 2 Others [2012] eKLR, where the Supreme Court emphasized:
"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."
17. In reinforcing this position, the Respondent cited Section 31 of the Legal Education Act, which provides:
"A person aggrieved by a decision of the Council may appeal to the Tribunal within twenty-one days from the date of the decision appealed against."
18. The Respondent also cited the decisions in Nabulime Miriam & Others v Council of Legal Education (2026) Nabulime Miriam & others v Council of Legal Education & 5 others [2016] KEHC 7630 (KLR) and Republic v Kenya School of Law & 2 others Exparte Kgaborone Tsholofelo Wekesa [2019] KEHC 11107 (KLR)which affirmed that the Tribunal is clothed with jurisdiction to adjudicate appeals arising from decisions of the Kenya School of Law and the Council of Legal Education regarding admissions to the ATP.
19. Regarding the substantive issue of qualification for admission to ATP, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s authority to regulate admission criteria stems from Section 3 of the Legal Education Act, 2012 and is operationalized under Part II, Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Third Schedule to the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016.
20. The Respondent stated that he was admitted to pursue a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree on 05th September 2016 and completed it in December 2022. He had earlier obtained a Diploma in Law. On this basis, he argued that he had achieved academic progression within the meaning of Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act and should be admitted to the ATP.
21. He cited extensively from Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others (supra) where the Court of Appeal stated:
"The Council has a duty to regulate how the universities admit students to pursue various cadres of legal education; that is at the certificate, diploma and degree levels. That duty must be discharged at the point of entry of the student at the institution offering such courses... It is upon the Council to ensure that all those enrolled to pursue legal education programs are duly qualified in law to undertake such studies."
22. Further, the Respondent submitted that academic progression must be recognised as a lawful pathway under Section 8(3)(c) of the Act. He cited the judgment in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others (supra) , which clarified:
"The wording in Part C above is clear as it is, that prior learning and experience in law is what ought to be considered in formulating a system that would see the progression in legal education. We do not think a degree in aeronautics or a diploma in interior design for instance, can be termed as progression towards studying law."
23. To reinforce this argument, he cited Otieno & Another v Council of Legal Education (Civil Appeal 38 of 2018) [2021] KECA 349 (KLR), where the Court affirmed that the 2016 Regulations were declared unconstitutional but only prospectively. The Court held:
"...it is explicit that a court having declared a piece of legislation or a section of an Act to be unconstitutional, that Act or law becomes a nullity from the date of inception or enactment and not from the date of the judgment. But it will not be applicable to actions already crystallised whilst the expunged law was in force."
24. Accordingly, the Respondent argued that as of his admission on 05th September 2016, his rights had crystallised under the existing legal framework. He cited Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others (supra) once more where the Court said:
"We are alive to the fact that the parties relied on the said regulations as they were then in force before the Court of Appeal declared the same to be invalid for want of compliance with the Statutory Instruments Act, 2013 on December 21, 2021... But we hasten to add that such invalidation could not apply retrospectively."
25. The Respondent in addition submitted that Paragraph 1(a) and 1(b) of the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012, must be read as a composite provision rather than in isolation, and that the word "or" should not be interpreted to defeat the purpose of the statute.
26. The Respondent similarly cited the case of Otinga v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 3 Others (Civil Appeal E625 of 2023) [2025] KECA 460 (KLR) in which the Court of Appeal held:
"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."
27. In conclusion, the Respondent urged the Court to find that he had fulfilled all the necessary legal requirements for admission to the ATP through academic progression, that the Tribunal’s decision was legally sound, and that this appeal should be dismissed in its entirety with costs.
28. I have carefully considered the entire Record of Appeal, including the pleadings, proceedings, and evidence presented before the Tribunal, as well as the impugned judgment. I have also taken into account the written submissions made on behalf of both the Appellant and the Respondent, together with the authorities and legal principles cited in support thereof. Upon a thorough evaluation of the material placed before this Court, the following issues emerge for determination:
1) Whether the Respondent met the minimum statutory and regulatory qualifications for admission to the Advocates Training Program (ATP)
2) Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in interpreting Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012.
29. Before I delve into the specific issues for determination, I consider it necessary to clarify that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine the Respondent’s appeal was neither contested nor raised as an issue by the Appellant. Accordingly, it does not call for determination by this Court.
1) Whether the Respondent met the minimum statutory and regulatory qualifications for admission to the Advocates Training Program(ATP)
30. The Court begins by noting that admission to the Advocates Training Program (ATP) is governed primarily by the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012, the Legal Education Act, 2012, and, at the time material to this case, the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016. The Appellant maintained that the Respondent did not satisfy the minimum statutory and regulatory qualifications, particularly as to the required KCSE grades, and was therefore ineligible for admission to the ATP.
31. Paragraph 5 of the Third Schedule to the 2016 Regulations set out the minimum academic qualifications for admission to legal education programs. Paragraph 5(b) required a minimum grade of C+ in the KCSE and a B in either English or Kiswahili for admission to the LLB program. Additionally, Paragraph 6 of the same Schedule introduced a significant qualification. It permitted a person who had obtained a higher qualification in law, such as an LLB, to be considered for admission, provided that the prior qualification on which the admission was based (e.g. a diploma) was also in law.
32. The Respondent sat the KCSE examination in 2010, obtaining a mean grade of B- (minus), with B- in English and C+ in Kiswahili. He then enrolled in and successfully completed a Diploma in Law from Mount Kenya University in 2014. Thereafter, on the basis of this diploma, he was admitted to the LLB program at the same institution on 05th September 2016 and completed his degree in 2022.
33. As at the date of the Respondent’s admission to the Bachelor of Laws program, the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016 were in full force and effect. These Regulations governed, among other matters, the minimum entry qualifications for legal education programs and provided a structured academic progression mechanism under Paragraph 6 of the Third Schedule.
34. The 2016 Regulations remained in force until they were declared invalid by the High Court on 30th January 2018. The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision in Otieno & Another v Council of Legal Education (supra), but importantly held that the invalidation did not have a retrospective effect. The Court clarified that although the Regulations became a nullity from the date of their enactment, rights that had crystallised while they were operational could not be defeated.
35. The Respondent’s admission into the LLB programme, following his diploma in law, occurred during the validity of the 2016 Regulations. His academic progression from diploma to degree was undertaken in compliance with the prevailing legal framework and cannot be termed irregular or unlawful. By the time the 2016 Regulations were invalidated, his rights thereunder had already crystallised.
36. This Court finds that the Respondent’s academic journey aligns with the progression model contemplated under Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act, 2012, which requires the Council of Legal Education to develop a framework for recognising prior legal training to facilitate academic advancement. The Respondent’s qualifications were obtained from accredited institutions within the legal discipline, and no substantive challenge was raised against them by the Appellant.
37. To disqualify the Respondent from admission to the ATP solely on account of his KCSE results — despite his lawful progression through a diploma and LLB degree under a framework that expressly permitted such advancement would undermine both the letter and spirit of the law.
38. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 2016 Regulations applied to the Respondent’s case and conferred rights that crystallised upon his admission to the LLB program. He met the minimum statutory and regulatory qualifications for admission to the ATP through the academic progression pathway recognised at the material time.
`3) Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself
39. The Appellant contended that the Tribunal misdirected itself in the interpretation of Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012. Those provisions provide that:
“A person shall be admitted to the School if—
(a) having attained a minimum entry requirement for admission to a university in Kenya, he or she has obtained a Bachelor of Laws degree of a university in Kenya that is recognized by the Council of Legal Education; or
(b) having attained a university entrance qualification in a foreign country, he or she has obtained a Bachelor of Laws degree from a foreign university, and has sat and passed the pre-bar examination set by the Council.”
40. The Appellant argued that these provisions must be interpreted rigidly, such that even for local university LLB graduates, the minimum KCSE qualification for university admission must be shown to have been met, regardless of academic progression thereafter. The Tribunal, however, took the view that these provisions must be construed in a manner that harmonises them with the broader legal framework, including Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act and the academic progression framework under the 2016 Regulations.
41. This Court agrees with the Tribunal’s interpretation. Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) are clearly disjunctive in form, creating distinct and independent modes of qualification. Moreover, the law does not operate in a vacuum. Any interpretation of statutory provisions must take into account the full context, purpose, and harmonization of applicable statutes and regulations. The Tribunal rightly interpreted Paragraph 1(a) to allow for admission based on an LLB acquired through recognized academic progression.
42. As for the Appellant’s assertion that the Tribunal’s findings were contrary to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others (supra), the Court finds this argument unfounded. The Court of Appeal in that case did not reject academic progression within legal education. On the contrary, it upheld such progression as valid where it was grounded in prior legal learning, such as a diploma in law. The Court specifically cautioned against recognizing progression based on unrelated qualifications, but affirmed that law-based progression remains legitimate.
43. The Respondent’s case fits squarely within the permissible framework. His progression was not only legally recognized but also factually consistent with the court of appeal finding. The Tribunal’s reasoning and conclusions were, in this Court’s view, sound, balanced, and anchored in the prevailing law and precedent.
44. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Tribunal neither misinterpreted Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012, nor acted contrary to the binding authority of the Court of Appeal.
45. As a result, it is hereby ordered:
1) This appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
2) The judgment of the Legal Education Appeals Tribunal dated 27th May 2023 is upheld.
3) The 1st Respondent shall have the costs of the appeal
4) File closed
Appearances
Court Assistant - Ubah
For Appellant - Ms. Mbuthu Advocate
For Respondent - Mr. Araji for Kenga & Kenga Advocates
For Interested Party- N/A
2. This appeal is yet another iteration of this recurring theme. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Respondent and directed that he be admitted to the ATP on the basis of academic progression.
3. The Council of Legal Education is joined to these proceedings as an Interested Party due to its statutory mandate to oversee legal education and set standards for admission to legal training programs, including the Advocates Training Program (ATP).
4. The matter before this Court once again raises critical questions as to the correct interpretation of the minimum entry requirements and the legal effect of academic progression within the framework of the Kenya School of Law Act, the Legal Education Act, and applicable regulations.
5. The Respondent had sat for his KCSE examination in 2010, attaining a mean grade of B- (minus), with a B- in English and C+ in Kiswahili. He subsequently obtained a Diploma in Law from Mount Kenya University in 2014 and was admitted to the Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree at the same university on 05th September 2016. He completed the LLB in December 2022.
6. Following his LLB graduation, the Respondent applied for admission to the ATP. However, by a letter dated 04th January 2023, the Appellant declined the application on grounds that the Respondent had not met the minimum qualifications stipulated in the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012, and relevant regulations.
7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 03rd February 2023, asserting that he had achieved academic progression and was therefore entitled to admission under the prevailing legal framework. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the Respondent had met the criteria through progression and directing his admission.
8. The Appellant challenges this decision on grounds that the Tribunal misapplied the relevant statutes and binding precedent, particularly the Court of Appeal’s decision in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others [2022] KECA 1132 (KLR), which it claims clarified the applicable minimum qualifications for admission to the ATP.
Appellant’s Submissions
6. In its written submissions dated 02nd July 2024, the Appellant, Kenya School of Law, reiterated that the determination of eligibility for admission to the Advocates Training Program (ATP) must be firmly grounded in the statutory framework. It placed significant reliance on the Court of Appeal’s binding pronouncement in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others (supra) contending that uniform application of the law is imperative.
7. The Appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred by disregarding the Respondent’s secondary school qualifications. It argued that under the Kenya School of Law Act, an applicant must meet minimum KCSE qualifications, and that the Tribunal’s approach would erroneously permit ATP admission solely based on a university degree, thereby negating the foundational academic thresholds established by law.
8. The Appellant further contended that interpreting the Schedule to allow entry into the ATP without satisfying minimum KCSE scores undermines legal certainty and opens the door to arbitrary standards. It reiterated that eligibility must remain tethered to objectively ascertainable benchmarks.
9. It was the Appellant’s position that such an interpretation renders the statutory scheme incoherent. Emphasis was placed on the need for a purposive and harmonious reading of Paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act, especially the conjunction “or” between subparagraphs (a) and (b). The Appellant cited the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others (supra), which stressed that statutory interpretation must consider both text and context to give effect to legislative intent, with each word in its rightful place.
10. The Appellant warned that if the Tribunal’s interpretation were upheld, it would result in discriminatory and irrational outcome, where applicants with identical university degrees but different secondary school qualifications would be subjected to divergent standards, based solely on whether their degree was local or foreign. Such a result, it submitted, would be contrary to the principles of equality, predictability, and fairness in legal education.
11. To reinforce this position, the Appellant referred to the Court’s unequivocal finding in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others (supra) that
“whether you obtained a degree in a Kenyan or out of a Kenyan university, the basic requirement is the score in one’s KCSE results which should correspond to those cited in the Act.” It argued that the Tribunal’s contrary reading would create irrational disparities among applicants.
12. It was additionally submitted that failure to adhere to this statutory standard could result in discriminatory outcomes, as similarly placed applicants would be treated differently based solely on the geographical origin of their degrees, contrary to the principles of fairness and equality.
13. The Appellant also invoked the High Court’s judgment in Transnational Computer Technology Limited v Attorney General; National Assembly & Another (Interested Parties) (Petition E091 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 3661 (KLR), to stress that the decisions of the Court of Appeal are binding on this Court, and any departure would offend the constitutional norm of judicial hierarchy.
14. In conclusion, the Appellant submitted that the Tribunal misdirected itself by departing from binding precedent and by failing to adhere to the legal thresholds governing admission to the ATP. It urged this Court to find that the Tribunal’s judgment was both legally and procedurally flawed, to set aside the impugned decision, and to allow the appeal in its entirety.
Respondent’s submissions
15. In the Respondent’s submissions dated 16th April 2025, he submitted extensively that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the appeal under Section 31 of the Legal Education Act. He cited the seminal case of Owners of the Motor Vessel Lilian 'S' [1989] KLR 1, where Nyarangi J.A. held:
"Jurisdiction is everything... a court of law downs tools... the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction."
16. Respondent also relied on Samuel Kamau Macharia and Another v Kenya Commercial Bank and 2 Others [2012] eKLR, where the Supreme Court emphasized:
"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."
17. In reinforcing this position, the Respondent cited Section 31 of the Legal Education Act, which provides:
"A person aggrieved by a decision of the Council may appeal to the Tribunal within twenty-one days from the date of the decision appealed against."
18. The Respondent also cited the decisions in Nabulime Miriam & Others v Council of Legal Education (2026) Nabulime Miriam & others v Council of Legal Education & 5 others [2016] KEHC 7630 (KLR) and Republic v Kenya School of Law & 2 others Exparte Kgaborone Tsholofelo Wekesa [2019] KEHC 11107 (KLR)which affirmed that the Tribunal is clothed with jurisdiction to adjudicate appeals arising from decisions of the Kenya School of Law and the Council of Legal Education regarding admissions to the ATP.
19. Regarding the substantive issue of qualification for admission to ATP, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s authority to regulate admission criteria stems from Section 3 of the Legal Education Act, 2012 and is operationalized under Part II, Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Third Schedule to the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016.
20. The Respondent stated that he was admitted to pursue a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree on 05th September 2016 and completed it in December 2022. He had earlier obtained a Diploma in Law. On this basis, he argued that he had achieved academic progression within the meaning of Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act and should be admitted to the ATP.
21. He cited extensively from Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others (supra) where the Court of Appeal stated:
"The Council has a duty to regulate how the universities admit students to pursue various cadres of legal education; that is at the certificate, diploma and degree levels. That duty must be discharged at the point of entry of the student at the institution offering such courses... It is upon the Council to ensure that all those enrolled to pursue legal education programs are duly qualified in law to undertake such studies."
22. Further, the Respondent submitted that academic progression must be recognised as a lawful pathway under Section 8(3)(c) of the Act. He cited the judgment in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others (supra) , which clarified:
"The wording in Part C above is clear as it is, that prior learning and experience in law is what ought to be considered in formulating a system that would see the progression in legal education. We do not think a degree in aeronautics or a diploma in interior design for instance, can be termed as progression towards studying law."
23. To reinforce this argument, he cited Otieno & Another v Council of Legal Education (Civil Appeal 38 of 2018) [2021] KECA 349 (KLR), where the Court affirmed that the 2016 Regulations were declared unconstitutional but only prospectively. The Court held:
"...it is explicit that a court having declared a piece of legislation or a section of an Act to be unconstitutional, that Act or law becomes a nullity from the date of inception or enactment and not from the date of the judgment. But it will not be applicable to actions already crystallised whilst the expunged law was in force."
24. Accordingly, the Respondent argued that as of his admission on 05th September 2016, his rights had crystallised under the existing legal framework. He cited Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others (supra) once more where the Court said:
"We are alive to the fact that the parties relied on the said regulations as they were then in force before the Court of Appeal declared the same to be invalid for want of compliance with the Statutory Instruments Act, 2013 on December 21, 2021... But we hasten to add that such invalidation could not apply retrospectively."
25. The Respondent in addition submitted that Paragraph 1(a) and 1(b) of the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012, must be read as a composite provision rather than in isolation, and that the word "or" should not be interpreted to defeat the purpose of the statute.
26. The Respondent similarly cited the case of Otinga v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education & 3 Others (Civil Appeal E625 of 2023) [2025] KECA 460 (KLR) in which the Court of Appeal held:
"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."
27. In conclusion, the Respondent urged the Court to find that he had fulfilled all the necessary legal requirements for admission to the ATP through academic progression, that the Tribunal’s decision was legally sound, and that this appeal should be dismissed in its entirety with costs.
28. I have carefully considered the entire Record of Appeal, including the pleadings, proceedings, and evidence presented before the Tribunal, as well as the impugned judgment. I have also taken into account the written submissions made on behalf of both the Appellant and the Respondent, together with the authorities and legal principles cited in support thereof. Upon a thorough evaluation of the material placed before this Court, the following issues emerge for determination:
1) Whether the Respondent met the minimum statutory and regulatory qualifications for admission to the Advocates Training Program (ATP)
2) Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in interpreting Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012.
29. Before I delve into the specific issues for determination, I consider it necessary to clarify that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine the Respondent’s appeal was neither contested nor raised as an issue by the Appellant. Accordingly, it does not call for determination by this Court.
1) Whether the Respondent met the minimum statutory and regulatory qualifications for admission to the Advocates Training Program(ATP)
30. The Court begins by noting that admission to the Advocates Training Program (ATP) is governed primarily by the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012, the Legal Education Act, 2012, and, at the time material to this case, the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016. The Appellant maintained that the Respondent did not satisfy the minimum statutory and regulatory qualifications, particularly as to the required KCSE grades, and was therefore ineligible for admission to the ATP.
31. Paragraph 5 of the Third Schedule to the 2016 Regulations set out the minimum academic qualifications for admission to legal education programs. Paragraph 5(b) required a minimum grade of C+ in the KCSE and a B in either English or Kiswahili for admission to the LLB program. Additionally, Paragraph 6 of the same Schedule introduced a significant qualification. It permitted a person who had obtained a higher qualification in law, such as an LLB, to be considered for admission, provided that the prior qualification on which the admission was based (e.g. a diploma) was also in law.
32. The Respondent sat the KCSE examination in 2010, obtaining a mean grade of B- (minus), with B- in English and C+ in Kiswahili. He then enrolled in and successfully completed a Diploma in Law from Mount Kenya University in 2014. Thereafter, on the basis of this diploma, he was admitted to the LLB program at the same institution on 05th September 2016 and completed his degree in 2022.
33. As at the date of the Respondent’s admission to the Bachelor of Laws program, the Legal Education (Accreditation and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2016 were in full force and effect. These Regulations governed, among other matters, the minimum entry qualifications for legal education programs and provided a structured academic progression mechanism under Paragraph 6 of the Third Schedule.
34. The 2016 Regulations remained in force until they were declared invalid by the High Court on 30th January 2018. The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision in Otieno & Another v Council of Legal Education (supra), but importantly held that the invalidation did not have a retrospective effect. The Court clarified that although the Regulations became a nullity from the date of their enactment, rights that had crystallised while they were operational could not be defeated.
35. The Respondent’s admission into the LLB programme, following his diploma in law, occurred during the validity of the 2016 Regulations. His academic progression from diploma to degree was undertaken in compliance with the prevailing legal framework and cannot be termed irregular or unlawful. By the time the 2016 Regulations were invalidated, his rights thereunder had already crystallised.
36. This Court finds that the Respondent’s academic journey aligns with the progression model contemplated under Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act, 2012, which requires the Council of Legal Education to develop a framework for recognising prior legal training to facilitate academic advancement. The Respondent’s qualifications were obtained from accredited institutions within the legal discipline, and no substantive challenge was raised against them by the Appellant.
37. To disqualify the Respondent from admission to the ATP solely on account of his KCSE results — despite his lawful progression through a diploma and LLB degree under a framework that expressly permitted such advancement would undermine both the letter and spirit of the law.
38. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 2016 Regulations applied to the Respondent’s case and conferred rights that crystallised upon his admission to the LLB program. He met the minimum statutory and regulatory qualifications for admission to the ATP through the academic progression pathway recognised at the material time.
`3) Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself
39. The Appellant contended that the Tribunal misdirected itself in the interpretation of Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012. Those provisions provide that:
“A person shall be admitted to the School if—
(a) having attained a minimum entry requirement for admission to a university in Kenya, he or she has obtained a Bachelor of Laws degree of a university in Kenya that is recognized by the Council of Legal Education; or
(b) having attained a university entrance qualification in a foreign country, he or she has obtained a Bachelor of Laws degree from a foreign university, and has sat and passed the pre-bar examination set by the Council.”
40. The Appellant argued that these provisions must be interpreted rigidly, such that even for local university LLB graduates, the minimum KCSE qualification for university admission must be shown to have been met, regardless of academic progression thereafter. The Tribunal, however, took the view that these provisions must be construed in a manner that harmonises them with the broader legal framework, including Section 8(3)(c) of the Legal Education Act and the academic progression framework under the 2016 Regulations.
41. This Court agrees with the Tribunal’s interpretation. Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) are clearly disjunctive in form, creating distinct and independent modes of qualification. Moreover, the law does not operate in a vacuum. Any interpretation of statutory provisions must take into account the full context, purpose, and harmonization of applicable statutes and regulations. The Tribunal rightly interpreted Paragraph 1(a) to allow for admission based on an LLB acquired through recognized academic progression.
42. As for the Appellant’s assertion that the Tribunal’s findings were contrary to the Court of Appeal’s decision in Kenya School of Law v Akomo & 41 Others (supra), the Court finds this argument unfounded. The Court of Appeal in that case did not reject academic progression within legal education. On the contrary, it upheld such progression as valid where it was grounded in prior legal learning, such as a diploma in law. The Court specifically cautioned against recognizing progression based on unrelated qualifications, but affirmed that law-based progression remains legitimate.
43. The Respondent’s case fits squarely within the permissible framework. His progression was not only legally recognized but also factually consistent with the court of appeal finding. The Tribunal’s reasoning and conclusions were, in this Court’s view, sound, balanced, and anchored in the prevailing law and precedent.
44. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Tribunal neither misinterpreted Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the Second Schedule to the Kenya School of Law Act, 2012, nor acted contrary to the binding authority of the Court of Appeal.
45. As a result, it is hereby ordered:
1) This appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
2) The judgment of the Legal Education Appeals Tribunal dated 27th May 2023 is upheld.
3) The 1st Respondent shall have the costs of the appeal
4) File closed
Appearances
Court Assistant - Ubah
For Appellant - Ms. Mbuthu Advocate
For Respondent - Mr. Araji for Kenga & Kenga Advocates
For Interested Party- N/A