Description

CLE AND KSL IN THE MATTERS OF APPLICATION BY RITA BIWITT

MATTER DF        Elli.’OTT

(Applicat.xon far F t ay of i. on                    ën

Appeal from the F:ulxna of the Hi ah Cat.tr•t i^s la i rob L (The Hor-t . Mr. Shah) n i.

October, 1994

^T HE COI.jRT

tntænded

on ⁿ At h

 

In the E pr-inq of 1991 , the respondent. obtained a Bachelor 0+

Arts degree from Mcg il l IJn i vergity at Montreal , Qt-tebec in Canada. an 17th July , 1991, she admitted ag a fu l l time student in

the. Faculty of La.VJ, Lini.ver•sity of Ed inbt-trgh, in order put-sue a of 3 ti-tdy to qual if y for the degree of LLB. It is not in d j. # pt-tte tha he syl I abus for F. he LLB deg ree at Ed inbl-trgh

Un  i; designed to be covered in per i ad of responden  of F-he B.A. degree which she held

from Mcg il l Univerãit’,’f rom the f i r st year’ s study

in car-I BFžqt.tence    able 110 complete F. he        i. red stud i es to

1. f)’ for the LLB degree after a period of study spread roar 3 only . Thi s  was permtssible and provided for in

I es and regu lat ions of the University . The properly and legitimët.ely granted . The respondent

t hi-ts obtained her LLB degree from Ed in burgh University after

ct2tnpJ e ting t hi’ bpd r: our; e of s t Ltd’/                         in                                       The L L R

t •a             can 17 t. h

appl i ed to the Council c f

Legal. EC.iLtc:a lion ( hereaf ter- r a f err 2t-.j                                  to as the Council ) for

to t He P.•.enya                                                                                                 f

to n r t * V: the prescribed cou.rse of I egalEdt-tCa e i an in preparation the?  speci f i ed in Part of the Advocates Adtnission) Regulations, Advocates Act. Cap 16,

(hereafter referred F.o as the Act) . At the same time s he a Iso applied to the Attorney G—meral to be taken as a pupil in his chambers in accordance wi th the provisions of the Act. The

Attorhey General accepted her application for pupilaae and, a e  same time informed the principa l of the Law School tha•t effect. On Lath March, 1994 , the Secretary of the Counci I

informed the respondent by letter that the Counci I at i t s meeting crf 14th F E,br-t-tary , 1994, haci not 4 pproved her two—year degree f rcjm the I-Jniver-sity of Edinburgh under Section 1

of the Act. This decision was confirmed to the respondent’ s šdvccate t. hr-ough the letter of 9 F.h May On

L 994 an application under order of the Civi l F’rocedure Rut les

and other relevan t Acts fi l in the Superior Court for an Dr-der of Mandamus to • On th— undispu ted ev idence before him and s’-tbmiszions made to h i fn the learned judge in a cons idered

ruling del ivered on 2nd October.                      gran tect the                            i cation

for an order of mandamus to isst.te in terms of the prayers in the application Which directed:

the Secretary of the Cot-tncil to i to the respondQnt a Certi f i c a he n f Enrnlm—nt t h retrospective effect f r cm | ‘1 F. h February 1794 and

( b) the principal. of t t IQ Law School to admit the eppl i cant school tn a cot.trse of

1. I t: i. mn infor the

	examinations ½peci f i.ed in paragraph Advocates (Admissian) Regulations.		IV of the
	Art appl i. cation for stay of e.uecution		o f the	order was
rejected by the 1994 A notice applicants viz : In the meantime, ma.ndæmus orde:r•.		learned judge on the same day.            On 28th October, of appeal was lodged on behalf of the two the Council and the Principal of the Law School . in compl i ance with the second part of the the Principal of the Law School by his letter of

.27-th October, 1994, confirmed the respondent s admission to the

Law School .    In consequence of her being so admi t ted, the

Solicitor General by his letter of 2Bth October 1994, gran ted

her pupilage facilities in the Treaties and Aareements Department of the State Law ff ice. Over weeks after the respondent’ s

admission to the Law School and after the granting of pupilage

facili ties to the respondent,                     the applicants on L 4th November,

L 994 filed the ins tant applicaF-ion under Rule 5 (2) (b) of the

Cot.trt of Appeal    les seek ing a g t a’/ of ey.ecution of the Mandamus

order pending the hearing and determination of the appl i cants

in tended appeal . For obvxous reasong, the application has been

heard by under a need of urgency .

b’/ a number of der:xsions o

this that Vilnen ling VI L t h an appl ication of thx s naturi what the r: or-I r t. has satisfy i tsel f an is that the intendec

nat.  vjnrdg an arguablg

court J. s s Fnot a f r i vaiot-(E

and Y-hët is

court D f the strenath or chances of

11 CLE AND KSL IN THE MATTERS OF APPLICATION BY RITA BIWITT-1-2