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, on September 29, 2026, certified as urgent a case challenging the legality and constitutionality of the admission criteria published for the upcoming ATP intake.
The court issued orders restraining KSL and CLE from implementing the contested criteria, processing applications based on the requirements, or admitting and enrolling students under the disputed framework.
The court also directed the parties to preserve the status quo that existed before the publication and implementation of the contested admission advertisement.
KSL and CLE have been given seven days from the date of service to file their responses, while the applicants have two days to file a rejoinder, if necessary.
The case will be heard inter partes on October 13, 2026. The parties have also been allowed to file skeleton submissions of not more than five pages, using font size 13.
The petitioners argue that the 2027/2028 ATP advertisement introduced new substantive eligibility pathways that are not supported by an operative Act of Parliament or valid subsidiary legislation.
They have particularly challenged provisions allowing alternative admission routes for LL.B graduates with lower secondary school grades who possess specified additional qualifications and/or pass a Pre-Bar Examination.
According to the applicants, KSL cannot use an annual administrative advertisement to create, change or expand statutory admission requirements.
They argue that any substantive alteration of ATP entry requirements must be made through the legally prescribed constitutional and statutory processes.
A key issue before the court is the legal status of draft Legal Education regulations currently undergoing the regulatory process.
The petitioners say CLE has developed the draft Legal Education (Licensing and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2026 and the draft Legal Education (Advocates Training Programme) Regulations, 2026, but the regulations have not completed public participation, parliamentary consideration, approval and gazettement.
They therefore contend that the draft regulations cannot be used as the legal basis for implementing a new ATP admission regime.
The applicants have also questioned whether there was adequate public participation before the disputed admission criteria were published.
They argue that consultations undertaken by CLE on the draft regulations did not amount to public participation on KSL’s specific administrative decision to adopt and publish the contested admission requirements.
The case raises broader constitutional and administrative law questions, with the petitioners alleging violations of Articles 10, 27, 43 and 47 of the Constitution, alongside breaches of the Fair Administrative Action Act and the Statutory Instruments Act.
They have further accused the respondents of acting without proper jurisdiction and statutory authority, exercising powers ultra vires, procedural impropriety, irrationality, abuse of statutory power and violation of legitimate expectations.
The petitioners maintain that the case has implications beyond individual applicants, arguing that the disputed criteria could affect thousands of current and prospective law students, universities, legal education providers and the wider legal profession.
They have urged the court to intervene before the admission process progresses, arguing that the ATP is a critical stage towards admission to the Roll of Advocates.
The applicants further told the court that the admission process is time-sensitive and that allowing applications, admissions and enrolment to continue under the disputed criteria could result in academic consequences that may be difficult to reverse.
The court is now expected to hear the parties on October 13, when the dispute over the legality of the 2027/2028 ATP admission criteria will come under further scrutiny.
