Republic v Council of Legal Education & Kenya School of Law Ex-Parte Kennedy Oduor Omondi [2017] KEHC 2658 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  545 OF 2016

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

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ADMISSION TO THE ADVOCATES TRAINING PROGRAMME

AND

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

BETWEEN

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

VERSUS

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

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

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

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

c. Those costs of the application be provided for.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DETERMINATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) A degree from a recognized university.

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) A degree  from a recognized  university;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R.E.ABURILI

JUDGE

In the Presence of:

N/A for exparte applicant

N/A for Respondents

CA: Mike