High Court halts KSL 2027/28 ATP admissions over disputed entry rules

NAIROBI, Kenya Oct 6 – The High Court has temporarily stopped the Kenya School of Law (KSL) and the Council of Legal Education (CLE) from implementing disputed admission criteria for the 2027/2028 Advocates Training Programme (ATP).

Justice J.N. Onyiego issued the orders after certifying as urgent a petition challenging the legality and constitutionality of the admission requirements published for the upcoming ATP intake.

The court has restrained KSL and CLE from implementing the contested criteria, processing applications or admitting and enrolling students under the disputed requirements pending an inter partes hearing.

The respondents have also been directed to preserve the status quo that existed before the publication and implementation of the contested admission criteria.

The respondents are required to file their responses within seven days of being served, while the applicants have been given two days to file a rejoinder, if necessary.

The case will be heard inter partes on October 13, 2026.

The court has also allowed the parties to file skeleton submissions of no more than five pages, using font size 13.

The petitioners are challenging an advertisement issued by KSL for admission to the 2027/2028 ATP, arguing that it introduced new eligibility pathways that are not supported by an operative Act of Parliament or valid subsidiary legislation.

They contend that the advertisement creates alternative routes for admission, including pathways for LL.B graduates with lower secondary school grades who have specified additional qualifications or pass a Pre-Bar Examination.

The applicants argue that KSL cannot use an annual administrative advertisement to create, amend or expand statutory admission requirements.

They maintain that any substantive changes to ATP entry requirements must be made by an institution legally authorised to do so and through the constitutional and statutory procedures governing legislation and subsidiary legislation.

A key issue before the court is the status of draft regulations being developed as part of ongoing reforms in the legal education sector.

The petitioners say CLE has prepared the draft Legal Education (Licensing and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2026 and the draft Legal Education (Advocates Training Programme) Regulations, 2026.

However, they argue that the regulations have not completed the required processes, including public participation, parliamentary consideration, approval and gazettement.

The applicants therefore contend that the draft regulations cannot be relied upon as an operative legal basis for introducing new ATP admission requirements.

They have also cited the work of the Government Working Committee on Legal Education Sector Reforms, established by the Attorney-General in August 2024, which examined issues including entry requirements to the ATP and recommended reforms to harmonise the legal framework governing legal education.

The petitioners have further questioned whether there was adequate public participation before the disputed admission criteria were published.

They argue that consultations conducted by CLE on the draft regulations do not amount to public participation on KSL’s separate administrative decision to adopt and publish the specific criteria contained in the ATP advertisement.

According to the applicants, prospective students, universities, legal education providers, professional bodies and practising advocates were not given sufficient opportunity to comment on the criteria eventually imposed.

The petition raises constitutional and administrative law questions, including alleged violations of Articles 10, 27, 43 and 47 of the Constitution, alongside alleged breaches of the Fair Administrative Action Act and the Statutory Instruments Act.

The applicants also allege that KSL and CLE acted without proper jurisdiction or statutory authority and contend that the disputed requirements amount to an ultra vires exercise of power, procedural impropriety, irrationality and abuse of statutory power.

They have further cited violation of legitimate expectations.

The petitioners argue that the case has implications beyond the individual applicants because the disputed criteria could affect a large number of current and prospective law students, universities and legal education institutions.

They also say the requirements have implications for the wider legal profession because admission to the ATP is a key stage in the process leading to admission to the Roll of Advocates.

The applicants told the court that the ATP admission process is time-sensitive and warned that allowing applications, admissions and enrolment to proceed under the disputed criteria could create academic and administrative consequences that may be difficult to reverse if the criteria are later found unlawful.

The High Court will now consider the parties’ arguments on October 13 before determining the next course of action in the case.