Kihara Mercy Wairimu & 7 others v Kenya School of Law & 4 others [2020] eKLR

Key Facts

Issues

• The court determined whether the Kenya National Qualifications Authority (KNQA) violated its prior orders by issuing non-compliant equation letters instead of clearance certificates, and whether the affidavit of Dr. Juma Mukhwana should be struck out for exceeding the scope of the court's directives.
• The court addressed whether the petitioners, who had obtained a favorable judgment, could bypass statutory admission criteria for the Advocates Training Programme (ATP) and be admitted unconditionally, considering constitutional rights and procedural fairness under the Kenya School of Law Act and related regulations.

Holdings

• The court dismissed the petitioners' application for unconditional admission to the Kenya School of Law and registration for bar exams, emphasizing that statutory admission requirements must be met. These include submitting equivalent qualifications (e.g., IGCSE/GCE to KCSE), meeting minimum grades, and fulfilling procedural conditions such as paying fees and submitting documents. The court held that granting unconditional admission would violate established regulations and constitute unfair discrimination.
• The court determined that the Kenya National Qualifications Authority (KNQA) complied with the court's order by equating the petitioners' international certificates to KCSE equivalents, and therefore the memorandum of satisfaction filed by Dr. Juma Mukhwana was not struck out. The court clarified that KNQA was only required to equate the certificates without determining their relative value or the petitioners' eligibility for admission.

Remedies

• The court found that the 4th Respondent had misapprehended the required actions and issued letters contrary to the court's orders. As a result, the court directed the 4th Respondent to retract these non-compliant letters and to comply with the court's directives within 7 days. Failure to do so could lead to further action against the 4th Respondent.
• The court dismissed the application and determined that neither party was to bear the costs of the other. Instead, each party was instructed to bear their own costs. This was highlighted as both parties had won and lost aspects of the case, necessitating an equitable distribution of costs.
• The court determined that the applicants' request for unconditional admission to the Kenya School of Law and registration for the Bar examination without any conditions was without merit. The application was dismissed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs. The court emphasized that prior to admission, certain requirements such as paying fees, submitting necessary documents, and meeting attendance and examination criteria must be fulfilled.

Legal Principles

• The court conducted a judicial review, determining that the 4th Respondent acted ultra vires by exceeding its authority in interpreting the court's orders and issuing non-compliant documents.
• The court emphasized the violation of the petitioners' legitimate expectations by the respondents' failure to comply with the court's previous judgment and statutory admission requirements, leading to a declaration of unconstitutional actions.
• The court found the 4th Respondent's actions to be procedurally unfair and in breach of natural justice principles, as they issued equations and letters contrary to the court's orders without proper procedural adherence.

Cited Statute

• University Act, 2012
• Constitution of Kenya, 2010
• Council of Legal Education (Kenya School of Law) Regulations, 2009
• Kenya National Qualifications Framework Act, 2015
• Fair Administrative Actions Act, 2015

Judge Name

Passage Text

• One must have qualified to join the 1st Respondent institution... and must have paid the Examination Fees... and submit to CLE the documents they submitted to KSL to be admitted.
• The 4th Respondent must have misapprehended what was required of it and assumed a role that it did not have nor that was not required of it when it wrote letters contrary to the court's order.
• The Petitioners/Applicants are seeking variations, that would, alter the intention of the orders of 28th November 2019 as revised by the orders of 13th February 2020.