1. Introduction
Before this Court for determination is the Defendants’ Notice of Motion dated 16th May 2026 seeking, inter alia, orders for stay, review, variation and/or setting aside of the ruling and consequential orders issued by this Court on 14th May 2026, together with preservation and transitional measures concerning the governance and administration of the affairs of the Mombasa Parents Club and the School.
The application seeks the following orders:
a) Spent.
b) THAT pending the hearing and determination of this application inter partes, this Honourable Court be pleased to temporarily stay, suspend and/or hold in abeyance the implementation and enforcement of the Ruling and Orders issued by this Court on 14th May 2026.
c) THAT pending the hearing and determination of this application inter partes, this Honourable Court be pleased to restrain the Plaintiffs/Respondents from exclusively operating, administering and/or exercising unilateral control over the affairs, finances and bank accounts of the School pursuant to the orders issued on 14th May 2026.
d) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to review, vary, discharge and/or set aside the ruling and orders issued on 14th May 2026 on account of the alleged withdrawal of Constitutional Petition No. E012 of 2024, James Nyamwata Madara vs Ali Mohamed Salim & 17 Others, said to have formed the substratum of the impugned orders.
e) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to strike out and/or dismiss this suit for want of locus standi and/or collapse of the substratum upon which the Plaintiffs’ representative authority is alleged to be anchored.
f) THAT, in the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue such preservatory, transitional and/or accountability orders as may facilitate orderly governance, stakeholder participation and institutional stability pending restoration of constitutional governance structures within the Mombasa Parents Club.
g) THAT costs of the application be in the cause.
2. Background
The application is premised upon the Supporting Affidavit sworn on 16th May 2026 by the 16th Defendant, who avers that the ruling delivered by this Court on 14th May 2026 was materially anchored upon the existence and legal effect of Petition No. E012 of 2024, James Nyamwata Madara vs Ali Mohamed Salim & 17 Others, which, according to the Defendants, has since been withdrawn.
The deponent contends that the withdrawal of the aforesaid petition fundamentally altered the legal substratum upon which this Court’s previous orders rested and thereby rendered the continued operation of the interim governance structure untenable. It is deponed that the caretaker management arrangement relied upon by the Plaintiffs was established pursuant to proceedings and orders in the said petition and that the alleged withdrawal thereof effectively extinguished the legal foundation upon which the Plaintiffs purport to exercise authority.
The Defendants further contend that unless this Court intervenes, the continuation of the Plaintiffs in the management of the School risks creating institutional uncertainty, governance paralysis and disruption to the day-to-day administration of the School.
The Court was urged to review its earlier orders in the interests of institutional stability, proper stakeholder participation and orderly restoration of constitutional governance structures within the Mombasa Parents Club.
3. Plaintiffs’ Response
The Plaintiffs opposed the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 20th May 2026 by the 1st Plaintiff, who depones that the Defendants have deliberately misled this Court by asserting that Petition No. E012 of 2024 was withdrawn.
It is the Plaintiffs’ contention that no lawful or procedurally regular withdrawal has been demonstrated and that the Defendants have failed to establish compliance with the requisite procedural requirements governing withdrawal of constitutional proceedings. The Plaintiffs maintain that the alleged withdrawal remains contested and incapable of constituting a legal basis for upsetting subsisting court orders.
The 1st Plaintiff further avers that notwithstanding the ruling delivered on 14th May 2026, the Defendants acted in disregard of court directives by issuing communications, circulars and electronic messages purporting to reaffirm their authority and influence over the School’s administration, thereby undermining the authority of this Court.
The Plaintiffs contend that the present application is neither bona fide nor intended to facilitate good governance but is instead calculated to circumvent and frustrate compliance with subsisting court orders while masking conduct amounting to contempt.
The Plaintiffs consequently urge the Court to dismiss the application with costs.
4. Further Affidavit
The 16th Defendant filed a Further Affidavit sworn on 21st May 2026 reiterating that a Notice of Withdrawal was duly lodged in Petition No. E012 of 2024, thereby terminating the proceedings and extinguishing any legal basis for the Plaintiffs’ continued assertion of representative authority.
The Defendants maintain that the Plaintiffs have improperly entrenched themselves in office and accuse them of governance failures, unilateral administration and conduct allegedly detrimental to the School community.
The Defendants further depose that communications attributed to them through circulars and social media platforms, including WhatsApp groups, have been mischaracterised and do not constitute contemptuous conduct.
In support of their apprehension regarding continued management uncertainty, the Defendants annexed an affidavit sworn by one Jecinta Wanja, described as Chairperson of the Staff Welfare Committee, in which concern is expressed over institutional instability and alleged staff dissatisfaction concerning the prevailing governance impasse.
5. Issues for Determination
Having carefully considered the pleadings, affidavits, rival submissions and the history of this matter, the following issues arise for determination:
a) Whether the Defendants have satisfied the legal threshold for review, variation and/or setting aside of this Court’s ruling delivered on 14th May 2026;
b) Whether the Plaintiffs lack locus standi by reason of the alleged withdrawal of Petition No. E012 of 2024, James Nyamwata Madara vs Ali Mohamed Salim & 17 Others;
c) Whether circumstances exist warranting transitional and supervisory orders for the restoration of constitutional governance within the Mombasa Parents Club and the School;
d) What consequential and appropriate orders ought to issue in the interests of justice, institutional stability and protection of learners.
6. Analysis and Determination (Part I)
The jurisdiction of this Court to review its own orders is anchored under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides as follows:
“Any person considering himself aggrieved—(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed,and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.”
The principal basis upon which the present application rests is the assertion that Petition No. E012 of 2024 was withdrawn and that the said withdrawal constitutes a new and important matter sufficient to warrant review of this Court’s ruling dated 14th May 2026.
This Court has carefully considered the competing positions advanced by the parties on this issue.
The Defendants urge this Court to find that the alleged withdrawal effectively collapsed the legal substratum upon which the Plaintiffs’ authority was founded, thereby rendering the orders of 14th May 2026 unsustainable. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, dispute both the propriety and legal effect of the alleged withdrawal and urge this Court to reject the invitation to revisit its earlier decision.
While this Court declines to assume supervisory jurisdiction over proceedings before a court of concurrent jurisdiction, it nevertheless bears the obligation to ascertain whether the factual foundation upon which review is sought has been sufficiently demonstrated so as to meet the threshold contemplated under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
ANALYSIS
This Court has carefully examined the material placed before it concerning the alleged withdrawal of Petition No. E012 of 2024, James Nyamwata Madara vs Ali Mohamed Salim & 17 Others .
Whereas the Defendants urge this Court to proceed on the premise that the petition has effectively ceased to exist, the material presently before Court does not conclusively demonstrate such finality as would warrant the collapse of subsisting orders of this Court. More importantly, this Court takes judicial notice that the matter remains reflected within the court case tracking system and is pending mention and/or further directions. Whether the procedural steps undertaken in the alleged withdrawal satisfy the legal requirements is a matter falling within the province of the Court seized of that file and not this Court.
Accordingly, this Court declines the invitation to engage in collateral adjudication over proceedings pending before a court of concurrent jurisdiction. The alleged withdrawal, in the present circumstances, does not amount to a sufficient basis for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules .
The Defendants have likewise failed to demonstrate any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason warranting review, variation and/or setting aside of the orders issued on 14th May 2026 .
This Court therefore finds that the threshold for review has not been met.
(b) Whether the Plaintiffs Lack Locus Standi
The Defendants further contend that the Plaintiffs lack locus standi owing to the alleged collapse of the legal substratum upon which their representative authority was premised.
Having found that the alleged withdrawal of the petition remains disputed and unresolved for purposes of the present proceedings, and in the absence of any definitive determination vacating the interim arrangements previously recognised by Court, this Court is unable to conclude that the Plaintiffs lack standing.
In any event, this dispute transcends private contestation between rival factions. It concerns governance of an institution affecting learners, parents, staff, financial administration and continuity of educational services. This Court cannot permit a vacuum in governance capable of occasioning institutional paralysis merely because rival parties contest legitimacy.
The Court therefore finds no basis for striking out the suit on grounds of locus standi.
(c) What Is the Appropriate Way Forward?
Although the Defendants’ application fails, this Court cannot ignore the practical reality disclosed by the record.
The Court has observed, both from pleadings and conduct exhibited before it, that the governance crisis within the Mombasa Parents Club has substantially impaired orderly administration and generated persistent contestation over authority, finances, representation and institutional legitimacy.
The parties have demonstrated considerable distrust of one another and there is credible concern that unilateral administration by either side may continue to trigger instability and litigation to the detriment of the School community.
Most importantly, this Court takes judicial notice that the School has remained materially disrupted and, to a significant extent, on operational standstill due to the persistent governance dispute.
The welfare of learners and continuity of institutional management demand urgent intervention.
The Court directed parties to submit proposals regarding the restoration of constitutional governance through elections. Although parties differed on modalities, there was broad consensus that an independent body ought to supervise the electoral process so as to ensure credibility, neutrality and finality.
The Court has considered the legal framework governing school governance under the Basic Education Act, 2013 , including the latitude afforded regarding internal electoral arrangements and supervision.
While the Constitution of the Club ordinarily governs internal elections, the peculiar circumstances of this matter justify limited judicial intervention to restore constitutional order and safeguard the interests of learners and stakeholders.
This Court is empowered under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 63 thereof to issue such interlocutory and consequential directions as are necessary for the attainment of the ends of justice and the prevention of abuse of process.
Further, this Court’s unlimited original jurisdiction empowers it to fashion practical remedies suited to exceptional circumstances.
The Court is satisfied that an independently supervised electoral process is necessary to restore legitimacy, institutional confidence, and orderly governance.
In the circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission , through the County Elections Office, Mombasa, to prepare for and supervise the electoral exercise for the constitution of a new Board of the Mombasa Parents Club under this Court’s supervisory directions.
The Court is equally persuaded that independent observation by education authorities will enhance transparency and confidence in the process. Accordingly, the County Government of Mombasa County Executive Committee Member for Education and the County Director of Education, Mombasa County shall attend the exercise solely as independent observers.
In preparing the register of voters, the Court emphasises that legitimacy of participation must derive from present institutional membership and not historical affiliation.
Accordingly, the register of voters shall be derived strictly from the register of currently enrolled students at the School and not past, graduated, transferred, withdrawn or former students.
For avoidance of doubt, eligibility shall attach only to current student enrolment as at the date of this suit and as prepared by IEBC .
Further, voting shall not operate on an unrestricted one-parent-one-vote basis detached from student enrolment.
Rather, each currently enrolled student shall constitute the basis of voting eligibility; provided that where siblings are enrolled in the School, such siblings shall constitute one family voting unit exercisable through one parent or lawful guardian only , identified from School records, so as to avoid multiplicity of votes arising from the same household unless expressly authorised under the Club Constitution.
The Court further finds it prudent, in the interests of transparency and accountability, that each side, the Plaintiff and the defendant, appoint one election agent to observe the electoral process.
The Court also recognises that the School must continue operating and that election costs ought not become oppressive. The electoral process shall therefore remain minimal in cost and limited to what is reasonably necessary.
To facilitate implementation, authorised account signatories shall be permitted to withdraw only such reasonable sums as are strictly necessary to facilitate the electoral exercise subject to proper accountability.
The exercise must equally be expedited.
The court notes the multiplicity of applications in the file and to this end, these orders are deemed to be final so as to resolve the entire suit. The Plaintiff had filed a further application seeking that the plaintiffs be cited for contempt and in particular in respect to the phone. The court will not delve into further contestation, but to provide a level playing field, the court will allow the plaintiffs to purchase another phone and direct the current school management under the supervision of the IEBC to get the necessary contacts of the registered parents.
7. Disposition
Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders:
A. The Defendants’ Notice of Motion dated 16th May 2026 is hereby dismissed .
B. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission County Office, Mombasa , through the County Elections Officer, is hereby directed to prepare for, organise, supervise and conduct elections for a new Board/Management Committee of the Mombasa Parents Club in accordance with the Constitution of the Club and these Orders.
C. The Mombasa County Executive Committee Member for Education and the County Director of Education, Mombasa County , shall attend and oversee the electoral exercise strictly as independent observers and shall not interfere with the conduct of the elections.
D. The IEBC County Office, Mombasa, shall prepare the register of voters strictly from the official register of currently enrolled students of the School as at the date of this ruling and as prepared by the IEBC and shall expressly exclude former, graduated, withdrawn, transferred and past students.
E. Voting rights shall derive from current student enrolment a general one-parent-one-vote criterion. Where siblings are enrolled in the School, such siblings shall constitute one family voting unit exercisable through one parent or lawful guardian only identified from School records unless otherwise expressly provided by the Club Constitution.
F. The Plaintiffs and Defendants shall each appoint one (1) election agent for purposes of inspecting the register of voters and of observing and monitoring the electoral process.
G. The School shall facilitate the IEBC with reasonable logistical and administrative support necessary for implementation of this Court’s orders, it being noted that this is a court-mandated process and costs shall remain minimal and strictly necessary.
H. The duly authorised signatories to School and/or Club accounts are hereby authorised to withdraw such reasonable sums as are necessary solely for facilitation of the electoral process, subject to accountability and proper record keeping.
I. This Order shall be extracted and served upon the IEBC County Office, Mombasa, by close of business today.
J. The IEBC shall, within seven (7) days of service of this Order, prepare the register of voters and concurrently prepare all nomination materials, electoral materials and timelines for the campaign.
K. Nomination of candidates for all Board seats shall proceed simultaneously with preparation of electoral materials and shall comply with the Constitution of the Club save as to timelines and shall be as directed by THE IEBC
L. The IEBC County Elections Officer, Mombasa, shall formulate and publish timelines for the electoral process provided that the election shall be completed on or before 13th day of June 2026 .
M. Save as expressly varied herein, the orders issued in the ruling dated 14th May 2026 shall remain in force and the Plaintiffs are authorized to purchase a reasonably priced phone and to get all the contacts of the parents and guardians.
N. A copy of this ruling shall forthwith be served upon the IEBC County Office, Mombasa, the County Director of Education, Mombasa County, the County Executive Committee Member for Education, Mombasa County, the Deputy Registrar and Court Administrator of this Court and the Mombasa Region Police Commander.
o. The IEBC shall set the venue for the elections and the Mombasa Regional Police Commander shall provide security, bearing in mind the best interests of the learners.
p. The Handover shall take place on Monday, the 15 th day of June 2026, under the supervision of the County Director of Education, Mombasa County, the County Executive Committee Member for Education, Mombasa County, the Deputy Registrar, Mombasa High Court, and the Mombasa Region Police Commander.
q. The new board will be tasked with appointing auditors and taking appropriate steps in case of any mismanagement, as alleged, and they will run the school for the entire term of the board, as provided in the club’s constitution
r. This ruling shall comprise the entire suit, and each side shall bear their own costs to avoid burdening the parents.
s. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT/ONLINE THROUGH MS TEAMS AT MOMBASA THIS …28th… DAY OF …MAY……… 2026.
HON. LADY JUSTICE W. K. MICHENI
JUDGE
In the presence of
MRS JUMA FOR THE APPLICANT
BEBORA Court Assistant
Before this Court for determination is the Defendants’ Notice of Motion dated 16th May 2026 seeking, inter alia, orders for stay, review, variation and/or setting aside of the ruling and consequential orders issued by this Court on 14th May 2026, together with preservation and transitional measures concerning the governance and administration of the affairs of the Mombasa Parents Club and the School.
The application seeks the following orders:
a) Spent.
b) THAT pending the hearing and determination of this application inter partes, this Honourable Court be pleased to temporarily stay, suspend and/or hold in abeyance the implementation and enforcement of the Ruling and Orders issued by this Court on 14th May 2026.
c) THAT pending the hearing and determination of this application inter partes, this Honourable Court be pleased to restrain the Plaintiffs/Respondents from exclusively operating, administering and/or exercising unilateral control over the affairs, finances and bank accounts of the School pursuant to the orders issued on 14th May 2026.
d) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to review, vary, discharge and/or set aside the ruling and orders issued on 14th May 2026 on account of the alleged withdrawal of Constitutional Petition No. E012 of 2024, James Nyamwata Madara vs Ali Mohamed Salim & 17 Others, said to have formed the substratum of the impugned orders.
e) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to strike out and/or dismiss this suit for want of locus standi and/or collapse of the substratum upon which the Plaintiffs’ representative authority is alleged to be anchored.
f) THAT, in the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue such preservatory, transitional and/or accountability orders as may facilitate orderly governance, stakeholder participation and institutional stability pending restoration of constitutional governance structures within the Mombasa Parents Club.
g) THAT costs of the application be in the cause.
2. Background
The application is premised upon the Supporting Affidavit sworn on 16th May 2026 by the 16th Defendant, who avers that the ruling delivered by this Court on 14th May 2026 was materially anchored upon the existence and legal effect of Petition No. E012 of 2024, James Nyamwata Madara vs Ali Mohamed Salim & 17 Others, which, according to the Defendants, has since been withdrawn.
The deponent contends that the withdrawal of the aforesaid petition fundamentally altered the legal substratum upon which this Court’s previous orders rested and thereby rendered the continued operation of the interim governance structure untenable. It is deponed that the caretaker management arrangement relied upon by the Plaintiffs was established pursuant to proceedings and orders in the said petition and that the alleged withdrawal thereof effectively extinguished the legal foundation upon which the Plaintiffs purport to exercise authority.
The Defendants further contend that unless this Court intervenes, the continuation of the Plaintiffs in the management of the School risks creating institutional uncertainty, governance paralysis and disruption to the day-to-day administration of the School.
The Court was urged to review its earlier orders in the interests of institutional stability, proper stakeholder participation and orderly restoration of constitutional governance structures within the Mombasa Parents Club.
3. Plaintiffs’ Response
The Plaintiffs opposed the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 20th May 2026 by the 1st Plaintiff, who depones that the Defendants have deliberately misled this Court by asserting that Petition No. E012 of 2024 was withdrawn.
It is the Plaintiffs’ contention that no lawful or procedurally regular withdrawal has been demonstrated and that the Defendants have failed to establish compliance with the requisite procedural requirements governing withdrawal of constitutional proceedings. The Plaintiffs maintain that the alleged withdrawal remains contested and incapable of constituting a legal basis for upsetting subsisting court orders.
The 1st Plaintiff further avers that notwithstanding the ruling delivered on 14th May 2026, the Defendants acted in disregard of court directives by issuing communications, circulars and electronic messages purporting to reaffirm their authority and influence over the School’s administration, thereby undermining the authority of this Court.
The Plaintiffs contend that the present application is neither bona fide nor intended to facilitate good governance but is instead calculated to circumvent and frustrate compliance with subsisting court orders while masking conduct amounting to contempt.
The Plaintiffs consequently urge the Court to dismiss the application with costs.
4. Further Affidavit
The 16th Defendant filed a Further Affidavit sworn on 21st May 2026 reiterating that a Notice of Withdrawal was duly lodged in Petition No. E012 of 2024, thereby terminating the proceedings and extinguishing any legal basis for the Plaintiffs’ continued assertion of representative authority.
The Defendants maintain that the Plaintiffs have improperly entrenched themselves in office and accuse them of governance failures, unilateral administration and conduct allegedly detrimental to the School community.
The Defendants further depose that communications attributed to them through circulars and social media platforms, including WhatsApp groups, have been mischaracterised and do not constitute contemptuous conduct.
In support of their apprehension regarding continued management uncertainty, the Defendants annexed an affidavit sworn by one Jecinta Wanja, described as Chairperson of the Staff Welfare Committee, in which concern is expressed over institutional instability and alleged staff dissatisfaction concerning the prevailing governance impasse.
5. Issues for Determination
Having carefully considered the pleadings, affidavits, rival submissions and the history of this matter, the following issues arise for determination:
a) Whether the Defendants have satisfied the legal threshold for review, variation and/or setting aside of this Court’s ruling delivered on 14th May 2026;
b) Whether the Plaintiffs lack locus standi by reason of the alleged withdrawal of Petition No. E012 of 2024, James Nyamwata Madara vs Ali Mohamed Salim & 17 Others;
c) Whether circumstances exist warranting transitional and supervisory orders for the restoration of constitutional governance within the Mombasa Parents Club and the School;
d) What consequential and appropriate orders ought to issue in the interests of justice, institutional stability and protection of learners.
6. Analysis and Determination (Part I)
The jurisdiction of this Court to review its own orders is anchored under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides as follows:
“Any person considering himself aggrieved—(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed,and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.”
The principal basis upon which the present application rests is the assertion that Petition No. E012 of 2024 was withdrawn and that the said withdrawal constitutes a new and important matter sufficient to warrant review of this Court’s ruling dated 14th May 2026.
This Court has carefully considered the competing positions advanced by the parties on this issue.
The Defendants urge this Court to find that the alleged withdrawal effectively collapsed the legal substratum upon which the Plaintiffs’ authority was founded, thereby rendering the orders of 14th May 2026 unsustainable. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, dispute both the propriety and legal effect of the alleged withdrawal and urge this Court to reject the invitation to revisit its earlier decision.
While this Court declines to assume supervisory jurisdiction over proceedings before a court of concurrent jurisdiction, it nevertheless bears the obligation to ascertain whether the factual foundation upon which review is sought has been sufficiently demonstrated so as to meet the threshold contemplated under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
ANALYSIS
This Court has carefully examined the material placed before it concerning the alleged withdrawal of Petition No. E012 of 2024, James Nyamwata Madara vs Ali Mohamed Salim & 17 Others .
Whereas the Defendants urge this Court to proceed on the premise that the petition has effectively ceased to exist, the material presently before Court does not conclusively demonstrate such finality as would warrant the collapse of subsisting orders of this Court. More importantly, this Court takes judicial notice that the matter remains reflected within the court case tracking system and is pending mention and/or further directions. Whether the procedural steps undertaken in the alleged withdrawal satisfy the legal requirements is a matter falling within the province of the Court seized of that file and not this Court.
Accordingly, this Court declines the invitation to engage in collateral adjudication over proceedings pending before a court of concurrent jurisdiction. The alleged withdrawal, in the present circumstances, does not amount to a sufficient basis for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules .
The Defendants have likewise failed to demonstrate any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason warranting review, variation and/or setting aside of the orders issued on 14th May 2026 .
This Court therefore finds that the threshold for review has not been met.
(b) Whether the Plaintiffs Lack Locus Standi
The Defendants further contend that the Plaintiffs lack locus standi owing to the alleged collapse of the legal substratum upon which their representative authority was premised.
Having found that the alleged withdrawal of the petition remains disputed and unresolved for purposes of the present proceedings, and in the absence of any definitive determination vacating the interim arrangements previously recognised by Court, this Court is unable to conclude that the Plaintiffs lack standing.
In any event, this dispute transcends private contestation between rival factions. It concerns governance of an institution affecting learners, parents, staff, financial administration and continuity of educational services. This Court cannot permit a vacuum in governance capable of occasioning institutional paralysis merely because rival parties contest legitimacy.
The Court therefore finds no basis for striking out the suit on grounds of locus standi.
(c) What Is the Appropriate Way Forward?
Although the Defendants’ application fails, this Court cannot ignore the practical reality disclosed by the record.
The Court has observed, both from pleadings and conduct exhibited before it, that the governance crisis within the Mombasa Parents Club has substantially impaired orderly administration and generated persistent contestation over authority, finances, representation and institutional legitimacy.
The parties have demonstrated considerable distrust of one another and there is credible concern that unilateral administration by either side may continue to trigger instability and litigation to the detriment of the School community.
Most importantly, this Court takes judicial notice that the School has remained materially disrupted and, to a significant extent, on operational standstill due to the persistent governance dispute.
The welfare of learners and continuity of institutional management demand urgent intervention.
The Court directed parties to submit proposals regarding the restoration of constitutional governance through elections. Although parties differed on modalities, there was broad consensus that an independent body ought to supervise the electoral process so as to ensure credibility, neutrality and finality.
The Court has considered the legal framework governing school governance under the Basic Education Act, 2013 , including the latitude afforded regarding internal electoral arrangements and supervision.
While the Constitution of the Club ordinarily governs internal elections, the peculiar circumstances of this matter justify limited judicial intervention to restore constitutional order and safeguard the interests of learners and stakeholders.
This Court is empowered under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 63 thereof to issue such interlocutory and consequential directions as are necessary for the attainment of the ends of justice and the prevention of abuse of process.
Further, this Court’s unlimited original jurisdiction empowers it to fashion practical remedies suited to exceptional circumstances.
The Court is satisfied that an independently supervised electoral process is necessary to restore legitimacy, institutional confidence, and orderly governance.
In the circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission , through the County Elections Office, Mombasa, to prepare for and supervise the electoral exercise for the constitution of a new Board of the Mombasa Parents Club under this Court’s supervisory directions.
The Court is equally persuaded that independent observation by education authorities will enhance transparency and confidence in the process. Accordingly, the County Government of Mombasa County Executive Committee Member for Education and the County Director of Education, Mombasa County shall attend the exercise solely as independent observers.
In preparing the register of voters, the Court emphasises that legitimacy of participation must derive from present institutional membership and not historical affiliation.
Accordingly, the register of voters shall be derived strictly from the register of currently enrolled students at the School and not past, graduated, transferred, withdrawn or former students.
For avoidance of doubt, eligibility shall attach only to current student enrolment as at the date of this suit and as prepared by IEBC .
Further, voting shall not operate on an unrestricted one-parent-one-vote basis detached from student enrolment.
Rather, each currently enrolled student shall constitute the basis of voting eligibility; provided that where siblings are enrolled in the School, such siblings shall constitute one family voting unit exercisable through one parent or lawful guardian only , identified from School records, so as to avoid multiplicity of votes arising from the same household unless expressly authorised under the Club Constitution.
The Court further finds it prudent, in the interests of transparency and accountability, that each side, the Plaintiff and the defendant, appoint one election agent to observe the electoral process.
The Court also recognises that the School must continue operating and that election costs ought not become oppressive. The electoral process shall therefore remain minimal in cost and limited to what is reasonably necessary.
To facilitate implementation, authorised account signatories shall be permitted to withdraw only such reasonable sums as are strictly necessary to facilitate the electoral exercise subject to proper accountability.
The exercise must equally be expedited.
The court notes the multiplicity of applications in the file and to this end, these orders are deemed to be final so as to resolve the entire suit. The Plaintiff had filed a further application seeking that the plaintiffs be cited for contempt and in particular in respect to the phone. The court will not delve into further contestation, but to provide a level playing field, the court will allow the plaintiffs to purchase another phone and direct the current school management under the supervision of the IEBC to get the necessary contacts of the registered parents.
7. Disposition
Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders:
A. The Defendants’ Notice of Motion dated 16th May 2026 is hereby dismissed .
B. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission County Office, Mombasa , through the County Elections Officer, is hereby directed to prepare for, organise, supervise and conduct elections for a new Board/Management Committee of the Mombasa Parents Club in accordance with the Constitution of the Club and these Orders.
C. The Mombasa County Executive Committee Member for Education and the County Director of Education, Mombasa County , shall attend and oversee the electoral exercise strictly as independent observers and shall not interfere with the conduct of the elections.
D. The IEBC County Office, Mombasa, shall prepare the register of voters strictly from the official register of currently enrolled students of the School as at the date of this ruling and as prepared by the IEBC and shall expressly exclude former, graduated, withdrawn, transferred and past students.
E. Voting rights shall derive from current student enrolment a general one-parent-one-vote criterion. Where siblings are enrolled in the School, such siblings shall constitute one family voting unit exercisable through one parent or lawful guardian only identified from School records unless otherwise expressly provided by the Club Constitution.
F. The Plaintiffs and Defendants shall each appoint one (1) election agent for purposes of inspecting the register of voters and of observing and monitoring the electoral process.
G. The School shall facilitate the IEBC with reasonable logistical and administrative support necessary for implementation of this Court’s orders, it being noted that this is a court-mandated process and costs shall remain minimal and strictly necessary.
H. The duly authorised signatories to School and/or Club accounts are hereby authorised to withdraw such reasonable sums as are necessary solely for facilitation of the electoral process, subject to accountability and proper record keeping.
I. This Order shall be extracted and served upon the IEBC County Office, Mombasa, by close of business today.
J. The IEBC shall, within seven (7) days of service of this Order, prepare the register of voters and concurrently prepare all nomination materials, electoral materials and timelines for the campaign.
K. Nomination of candidates for all Board seats shall proceed simultaneously with preparation of electoral materials and shall comply with the Constitution of the Club save as to timelines and shall be as directed by THE IEBC
L. The IEBC County Elections Officer, Mombasa, shall formulate and publish timelines for the electoral process provided that the election shall be completed on or before 13th day of June 2026 .
M. Save as expressly varied herein, the orders issued in the ruling dated 14th May 2026 shall remain in force and the Plaintiffs are authorized to purchase a reasonably priced phone and to get all the contacts of the parents and guardians.
N. A copy of this ruling shall forthwith be served upon the IEBC County Office, Mombasa, the County Director of Education, Mombasa County, the County Executive Committee Member for Education, Mombasa County, the Deputy Registrar and Court Administrator of this Court and the Mombasa Region Police Commander.
o. The IEBC shall set the venue for the elections and the Mombasa Regional Police Commander shall provide security, bearing in mind the best interests of the learners.
p. The Handover shall take place on Monday, the 15 th day of June 2026, under the supervision of the County Director of Education, Mombasa County, the County Executive Committee Member for Education, Mombasa County, the Deputy Registrar, Mombasa High Court, and the Mombasa Region Police Commander.
q. The new board will be tasked with appointing auditors and taking appropriate steps in case of any mismanagement, as alleged, and they will run the school for the entire term of the board, as provided in the club’s constitution
r. This ruling shall comprise the entire suit, and each side shall bear their own costs to avoid burdening the parents.
s. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT/ONLINE THROUGH MS TEAMS AT MOMBASA THIS …28th… DAY OF …MAY……… 2026.
HON. LADY JUSTICE W. K. MICHENI
JUDGE
In the presence of
MRS JUMA FOR THE APPLICANT
BEBORA Court Assistant