The High Court has put on hold the 2027/2028 Advocates Training Programme (ATP) admission process at the Kenya School of Law (KSL) following a challenge to the new entry requirements.
Justice J.N. Onyiego issued temporary orders on September 29, 2026, stopping KSL and the Council of Legal Education (CLE) from using the disputed criteria to process applications or admit students.
The judge also directed the parties to maintain the position that existed before the new requirements were published.
The case was filed by petitioners who argue that KSL introduced new routes into the ATP without a law or regulations that are currently in force.
Among the contested provisions are admission pathways for some LL.B graduates with lower secondary school grades, provided they have additional qualifications or pass a Pre-Bar Examination.
The petitioners argue that KSL does not have the power to introduce or change statutory admission requirements through an annual advertisement.
They have also challenged the reliance on proposed Legal Education (Licensing and Quality Assurance) Regulations, 2026 and Legal Education (Advocates Training Programme) Regulations, 2026.
According to the petitioners, the draft regulations are still undergoing the required legal process and have not been approved and gazetted.
They therefore argue that the proposals cannot be used as the legal basis for the new admission rules.
The applicants have also raised concerns about public participation, saying consultations on the draft regulations did not give affected students, universities, legal education providers and other stakeholders an opportunity to comment on the specific criteria adopted by KSL.
The petition raises questions over the powers of KSL and CLE and alleges violations of constitutional and administrative law requirements.
KSL and CLE have seven days to respond after being served, while the petitioners have two days to file a response if necessary.
The case will be heard on October 13, 2026, when the court is expected to consider the parties' arguments on the disputed admission criteria.
