Description
CLE AND KSL IN THE MATTERS OF APPLICATION BY RITA BIWITT
MATTER DF Â Â Â Â Â Â Elli.’OTT
(Applicat.xon far F t ay of i. on                   ën
Appeal from the F:ulxna of the Hi ah Cat.tr•t is 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
- 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? Â 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 Å¡dvccate 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
- 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. Â 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
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.