1. The Petition herein invokes Articles 10, 19, 20, 36(1), 43(1)(f), 46, 47 and 53(1)(b) of the Constitution, together with the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, the Basic Education Act, 2013, the Children’s Act, and the Consumer Protection Act, seeking the following orders:
I. A declaration that the decision of the 1 st Respondent to increase school fees without consultation with or participation of the parents either directly or through their lawfully constituted Parents Association within the meaning of the Basic Education Act is a violation of the Basic Education Act and by extension a threat to the Rule of Law and a breach of the constitutional guarantee to equal protection and equal benefit of the law hence the same is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.
II. A declaration that the decision of the 1 st Respondent to increase school fees is an arbitrary act and that the same violates the rights of the parents, guardians and the affected children to fair administrative action within the meaning of Article 47 of the constitution, consumer protection within the meaning of Article 46 of the constitution and best interest of the minor learners within the meaning of Article 53 of the constitution hence the same is unconstitutional and unlawful and of no legal effect.
III. A declaration that the 1 st Respondent does not have a lawfully established Parents Teachers Association and the purported members of the Executive Committee are in office illegally since they were never elected by parents at an Annual General Meeting and their mandate has never been renewed or ratified at any subsequent Annual General Meeting as by law required.
IV. An order of mandamus directing the 1 st Respondent to immediately commence the process of establishing a legal and constitutional Parents' Teachers Association and to involve the Petitioners fully in that process including the election of members of the Executive Committee of the Parents Teachers Association.
V. Costs of an incidental to this Petition.
The Petitioners’ Case
2. The Petition is supported by the affidavit sworn by Erick Ngala, with the co-petitioner’s authority, on 21 st July 2026.
3. The deponent avers that all parents, including the Petitioners, received a notice from the 1 st Respondent in the form of a fees structure for the 2026/2027 academic year informing the parents that, with effect from September 2026, school fees would be increased for all parents and learners . The new fees structure is annexed as EN-2. He further annexes as EN-3 copies of the current fees structures applicable before the proposed increase , to demonstrate the difference between the existing fees and the fees proposed to take effect in September 2026.
4. That following receipt of the notice of increase, some parents protested against the proposed increase, the parents also demanded a meeting with the 1 st Respondent to address the issue of the increase in school fees vide a letter annexed as EN-4. The 1 st Respondent responded to the parents and promised to issue a formal response within 10 days from the date of the parents' letters.
5. The deponent states that the 1 st Respondent subsequently wrote to the parents and effectively reaffirmed its decision to increase the school fees, notwithstanding the issues raised by the parents concerning the alleged illegalities and unreasonableness relating to the fee increase. According to the deponent, the school's decision to proceed with implementation of what he describes as a “ patently unlawful and unreasonable decision” left the parents and learners with no other option: but to seek this court’s intervention.
6. That the parents and Petitioners are reasonably apprehensive that, because the notice of fee increase has not been recalled, the increased fees will take effect in September 2026 , when the new school term begins, unless stopped by the Court. The deponent states that the parents and learners stand to suffer great prejudice if the orders sought are not granted, identifying two specific forms of prejudice: the risk of denial of education if the increased fee isn’t paid and, that parents would be subjected to payment of penalties if fees are paid late , because imposing penalties for late payment is part of the 1st Respondent's operational policy.
7. The Deponent stresses that the above prejudice would occur despite the decision to increase the fees was allegedly reached without any consultation with the parents and that the school allegedly does not have any functional Parents Teachers Association (PTA), despite the Court having ordered the establishment of one in the 2020 decision.
8. The Deponent states that in 2020, parents of learners at the 1 st Respondent's schools instituted a constitutional petition against the Respondents and among the matters challenged was the 1st Respondent's alleged refusal to facilitate the establishment of a Parents Teachers Association. The Deponent states that, while purporting to obey the Court order , the 1 st Respondent unilaterally appointed members of the Executive Committee of a Parents Teachers Association in 2021 who have remained in office to date. That in order for the Executive Committee of a Parents Teachers Association to be lawfully constituted, its members must be elected annually by the parents at an Annual General Meeting (AGM) and hence the current c ommittee was not elected by the parents and it is illegal and unconstitutional.
9. The Deponents states that in the absence of a duly constituted PTA and its Committee, the decision to increase school fees was made unlawfully as it is the Parents Teachers Association whose function it is to discuss and agree on whatever fees should be levied upon parents and learners. They therefore ask for the Petition to be allowed.
10. Further, in a further affidavit dated 7 th August, 2026 , filed in response to the two Replying Affidavits of Jyotsna Chotai and Shubhrika Mohitey, both sworn on 28 July 2026, and the Grounds of Opposition filed by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on 29 th July 2026.
11. The deponent hence states that the school may have contractual powers and internal governance structures but those powers are subject to the Constitution and statutory obligations, the fee increase directly affects parents and children's access to education and therefore parents had to be meaningfully consulted through the legally recognized Parents Association before the decision was made. That the Respondents have not demonstrated that such consultation occurred, the AGM and subsequent circular cannot cure that defect because both occurred within the school's internal governance/notification process rather than through a lawfully constituted Parents Association.
The 1 st Respondent’s case
12. The 1 st Respondent filed two affidavits in opposition to the petition. The replying Affidavit sworn by Jyotsna Chotai, the Academic Consultant of the 1st Respondent states that :
13. The 1 st Respondents schools are private schools and not public schools and since the schools are not funded by Government resources parents enter into individual contractual arrangements with the respective schools, under which they undertake to pay tuition fees and other charges. The Respondent therefore argues that the Court should not interfere with or rewrite the terms of the private contractual agreements between individual parents and the school. They state that the Petitioners have improperly constitutionalized what is essentially a private contractual dispute and that the Petition is therefore incompetent, bad in law, and should be dismissed with costs.
14. The 1 st Respondent argues that no formal authority to act or plead from the alleged parents has been annexed to either the application or Petition. Consequently, the Respondent contends that the proceedings are essentially an individualistic endeavour, rather than a genuine public-interest action. The Respondent alleges that the proceedings are another attempt by the 1 st Petitioner to wage “political wars” against members of the Board. It relies on a WhatsApp message allegedly posted by the 1 st Petitioner on an Oshwal Parents forum on 12 June 2026, the Respondent reproduces the message in which the Petitioner allegedly threatened to identify the Board members' businesses, residences, temples and hotels and encourage Kenyans to boycott their goods and services. The message is annexed as JC 3 .
15. The Respondent states that it is an organization incorporated under the Societies Act, Cap 108, and operates under a constitution and by-laws revised in 2025. It operates five private school which provide education under the Cambridge International and Edexcel Systems, and maintain an average student-to-teacher ratio of approximately 8:1.
16. The Respondent strongly denies the allegation that the proposed fee increment was illegal, unilateral or arbitrary. The Deponent states that every fee increment is informed by, the organization’s operational demands, its budget, prevailing economic conditions and the need to minimize the economic impact on parents and the wider community. The Respondent maintains that fee increments have occurred over the years and that the 2026/2027 increase is not unusual. It provides a year-by-year comparison covering approximately 11 years to demonstrate that the Petitioners' allegation that the increase was arbitrary is unfounded. Importantly, the Respondent points out that there were no fee increases in several academic years, characterizing the proposed 2026/2027 increase as modest and justifiable, particularly considering prevailing inflation and economic conditions.
17. The Respondent states that it convened its 84 th Annual General Meeting (AGM) at the Shree Visa Oshwal Community Centre, Nairobi, between 15 and 17 May 2026.The meeting was preceded by notice to members and among the agenda items were the approval of the operational budget up to August 2027 and that parents and learners participated and there was no objection to the 6% fee increase as evidenced by the minutes attached. That parents were given three months' notice before the increased fees were to become effective. Consequently, denying that the fee increase was unilateral or arbitrary.
18. The Respondent states that the increase was justified by several factors, including, rising operational costs like f uel, electricity, water and general maintenance. The Respondent attributes these increases to the prevailing cost of living in Kenya, the need to attract and retain qualified and dedicated teachers through competitive remuneration packages. As well as investing on learning resources and technology and improvements to facilities.
19. The Respondent describes the 6% increase as modest and says that it is in the best interests of the students. It further states that the fee increase is necessary to sustain premium and seamless educational services. The Respondent disputes the Petitioners' claim that parents cannot afford the increased fees. The Petitioners have produced no evidence of inability to pay and there is no evidence that their children have been denied access to teaching and learning because of fees and that each of its more than 2,000 students is insured with a reputable insurance company.
20. The Respondent further compares its fees with those charged by other schools of a similar stature, namely, Nairobi International School, Brookhouse Schools, Sabis International School; and Crawford International School. The Respondent therefore argues that its fees remain cheaper than comparable schools.
21. The Respondent denies that the fee increase violates, the Constitution, Basic Education Act, Children Act or Consumer Protection Act, since constitutional rights cannot be said to have been infringed in relation to private contractual agreements between parents and the school.It further argues that the High Court is not clothed with jurisdiction to determine the terms of the contractual agreements between the school and parents where consultation has been undertaken and complied with.Thus, the Respondent's position is that the dispute is fundamentally contractual and that the constitutional jurisdiction of the Court should not be invoked to interfere with the parties' private contractual arrangements.
22. The Respondent acknowledges the decision of 3 September 2020 in OAPA (Suing as Parents or Guardians of Students Minors Currently Schooling at Oshwal Academy) v Oshwal Education & Relief Board & Others [2020] eKLR. Stating that it established a Parents Teachers Association. It sets out the PTA Executive Committee, including representatives for different years/classes and the PTA leadership and that this PTA has been in existence since 2021.
23. The Respondent strongly disputes the Petitioners' assertion that the PTA is non-functional or unlawfully constituted, that the PTA members have been vibrant and actively involved in the running of school activities in compliance with section 55 of the Basic Education Act. The Respondent further argues that the Petitioners have produced no evidence whatsoever demonstrating how the PTA has failed to comply with section 55 of the Basic Education Act.
24. It argues that the Petitioners have merely made sensational allegations that the 6% increase places fees beyond parents' reach and threatens the right to compulsory education. According to the Respondent, no evidence has been produced demonstrating that the increased fees are actually beyond the parents' means and that parents are paying the fees.
25. The Respondent states that if conservatory orders are issued, it will suffer considerable loss of revenue, which loss would allegedly stifle or cripple its activities, including the capital expenditure programme approved at the AGM. They therefore ask for dismissal of the petition.
26. There is another Replying affidavit sworn by Shubhrika Mohitey, who describes herself as the Chairperson of the Parents-Teachers Association (PTA) of Oshwal Education and Relief Board opposing the petition.
27. The deponent states that, contrary to the Petitioners’ contention, the 1 st Respondent has had a vibrant PTA since 2021 , with an executive committee comprising representatives from the different school years. She sets out the current PTA membership, including herself as PTA Chairlady and Rishit Karania as Vice Chair. She states that the PTA Executive Committee has held several meetings since 2021 concerning the welfare of learners and has worked amicably with the 1 st Respondent in organizing school activities. As an example, she refers to a magic show organized for students in March 2026 . She annexes a bundle of minutes and other documents marked “SM 1” as evidence of the PTA's activities.
28. According to the deponent, the PTA enjoys a measure of independence, with the 1 st Respondent merely facilitating its activities. She emphasizes that the PTA does not participate in the day-to-day management of the 1 st Respondent’s schools. She further states that the schools are wholly owned and managed by the 1 st Respondent and that the Board's support enables it to provide education as a private entity.
29. On the question of school fees, the deponent states that the PTA is aware that the tuition fees charged by the 1st Respondent are significantly lower than those charged by other international schools of similar stature. Of particular importance, she states that a 6% fee increment was approved at an Annual General Meeting held between 15 and 17 May 2026. The AGM was attended by delegates representing members of the Oshwal community and was hosted and run by the 1st Respondent. According to the affidavit, some of those delegates were themselves parents or guardians of learners at Oshwal Academy Nairobi and Mombasa.
30. The deponent further states that the PTA, as the umbrella body representing parents of the 1st Respondent, does not oppose the 6% fee increment. In her view, considering the prevailing economic situation in the country, the increment is modest and understandable.
31. She opposes the grant of the conservatory orders sought by the Petitioners, contending that such orders would negatively affect students' learning from September 2026 and would therefore not be in the interests of the parents and teachers whom she represents. She consequently urges the Court to decline the Petition and the application dated 21 July 2026, with costs.
The 2 nd and 3 rd Respondents case
32. The Attorney General filed grounds of opposition dated 29 th July,2026 in opposition to the petition, their position is essentially that the Petitioners have failed to establish any constitutional basis for the Court to interfere with the 1st Respondent’s internal governance and decision to increase school fees.
33. The Respondents contend that the Petitioners do not challenge the constitutionality of the Basic Education Act, 2013 or the regulations made under it. Consequently, the Act continues to enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. They argue that, without challenging the enabling statutory framework, the Petitioners cannot obtain constitutional relief against the 1 st Respondent’s internal governance arrangements.
34. The Respondents further contend that the 1 st Respondent is a private institution operating independently of public funding and that decisions concerning its operations and school fees fall within its proprietary and contractual autonomy protected under Article 40 of the Constitution. Parents voluntarily enroll their children on published terms, which include the school's right to review its fees. According to the Respondents, the Petitioners have not demonstrated any contractual or statutory requirement obliging the school to obtain the prior consent of the Parents-Teachers Association (PTA) before reviewing fees
35. On the role of the PTA, the Respondents argues that the PTA's role regarding fees is merely consultative and advisory rather than decisional. They maintain that fee setting remains the prerogative of the proprietor or Board of Management. Accordingly, even if consultation with the PTA were shown to have been inadequate, such inadequacy would not, in their view, render the fee increment unlawful or liable to be quashed.
36. The Respondents also invoke the presumption of legality and regularity, arguing that acts undertaken in accordance with the law are presumed valid and procedurally proper unless the contrary is established. On that basis, they contend that the school's existing Executive Committee and governance structures remain valid and operational and that administrative and financial resolutions made by those bodies are legally valid unless formally set aside.
37. Regarding the Petitioners' allegation that the AGM was illegally constituted, the Respondents characterize this as a collateral attack on the school's management. They contend that if the Petitioners' complaint is that the school failed to comply with a previous judgment, the appropriate remedy is to pursue execution or contempt proceedings, rather than instituting a fresh constitutional petition.
38. Ultimately, the Respondents maintain that the Petition is incompetent, misconceived, misplaced and an abuse of the Court process, because no violation of the Petitioners' constitutional rights or fundamental freedoms has been established. They therefore pray that the Petition be dismissed with costs.
Petitioners submissions
39. The Petitioners’ submissions dated 7 August 2026 support the Petition dated 21 st July 2026 challenging the 1st Respondent’s decision to increase school fees for the 2026/2027 academic year. Their central case is that although the 1 st Respondent is a private educational institution, it remains bound by the Constitution, the Basic Education Act, the Children’s Act and the Consumer Protection Act, and could not lawfully increase fees without complying with the statutory framework governing parental participation.
40. They identified 5 issues :
I. Whether the dispute raises justiciable constitutional questions or is merely contractual.
II. Whether they have locus standi.
III. Whether the 1st Respondent complied with the Basic Education Act in constituting a Parents Association and consulting parents before increasing fees.
IV. Whether the increment violated Articles 10, 43(1)(f), 46, 47 and 53 of the Constitution; and
V. Whether they are entitled to the constitutional reliefs sought.
41. On whether the dispute raises justiciable constitutional questions or is merely contractual, the Petitioners reject the Respondents’ argument that the dispute is purely contractual. They submit that they are not asking the Court to interpret or enforce the contractual terms governing enrolment or seeking damages for breach of contract. Rather, they challenge the legality and constitutionality of the process through which the school exercised powers regulated by the Basic Education Act and allege violations of constitutional rights.
42. They rely on Articles 22, 23, 165(3)(b) and 165(3)(d) of the Constitution, arguing that the High Court has jurisdiction to determine allegations of violations of fundamental rights and questions concerning whether an act or omission contravenes the Constitution. They contend that private contractual arrangements cannot displace mandatory statutory obligations imposed by section 55(3) and the Third Schedule to the Basic Education Act.
43. On standing, the Petitioners rely on Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution, which they submit deliberately confer broad standing in constitutional litigation. They are parents of learners at the 1 st Respondent's schools and state that they bring the Petition in their own interests, on behalf of their children, other similarly situated parents and learners, and in the public interest. They argue that they therefore do not require written authority from every affected parent.
44. They rely on Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others for the proposition that Articles 22 and 258 liberalized the rules on standing and removed restrictive common-law barriers to constitutional litigation. They further argue that because the fee increase applies generally across the school community, the legal issues are common to all affected parents and learners and may properly be determined in one constitutional Petition.
45. On the third issue, the Petitioners rely on section 55(3) of the Basic Education Act, which requires every private school to establish a Parents Association. They emphasize that the word “shall” makes this a mandatory obligation. They further argue that the Third Schedule prescribes the Association's composition, election of its Executive Committee, representation, tenure, governance structure and statutory functions.
46. Accordingly, the Petitioners submit that merely convening an AGM or establishing an internally constituted parents' body does not amount to compliance. Their contention is that the body relied upon by the 1 st Respondent does not correspond with the statutory Parents Association contemplated by section 55(3) and the Third Schedule.
47. Substantial reliance is placed on OAPA (Suing as Parents or Guardians of Student Minors Currently Schooling at Oshwal Academy) v Oshwal Education & Relief Board & 3 Others , in which the Court had previously held that establishment of a PTA under the Basic Education Act was mandatory and issued mandamus compelling the 1st Respondent to establish one in accordance with the law. The Petitioners therefore contend that the 1 st Respondent was already aware of its statutory obligation following that 2020 judgment.
48. They further distinguish between an AGM and a Parents Association . Their position is that the AGM is merely the forum through which parents elect the Executive Committee, whereas the Parents Association is the continuing statutory body entrusted with governance responsibilities, including considering and recommending school charges. Consequently, an AGM cannot substitute for the statutory Parents Association.
49. The Petitioners also rely heavily on Mutua & 6 Others (Suing on their Own Behalf and on Behalf of 1,000 Others) v St Bakhita Schools Limited & 3 Others [2024] KEHC 8804 (KLR) , which similarly concerned a private school's increase of school fees and the role of the PTA. They submit that the Court in Mutua found the alteration of the fees structure in the circumstances of that case to be unacceptable, unconscionable, unfair and unjust, and contrary to Article 47. The decision also recognised the PTA's statutory role in school financial planning and matters affecting learners' welfare.
50. The Petitioners rely particularly on the Court's reasoning that a private school is not exempt from constitutional and statutory obligations merely because it is privately owned. They therefore contend that school management cannot unilaterally increase fees without engaging the PTA as contemplated by the Basic Education Act.
51. Their ultimate position on this issue is that the fee increase was undertaken without meaningful participation of a duly constituted statutory Parents Association, and cannot be validated merely because it was approved through the school's internal governance structures or an AGM.
52. On the alleged constitutional provisions violated, the Petitioners contend that the procedural defects resulted in several constitutional violations. Under Article 10, they argue that bypassing the statutory Parents Association deprived parents of the meaningful participation contemplated by Parliament and failed to meet the standards of transparency, accountability and participation.
53. Under Article 47, they characterize the fee increase as an administrative decision affecting parents' financial obligations, legitimate expectations and children's access to education. They submit that failure to follow mandatory statutory procedures rendered the decision neither lawful nor procedurally fair. They rely on Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & Another regarding the constitutional character of fair administrative action.
54. Under Article 46, the Petitioners contend that parents paying for educational services are consumers entitled to protection of their economic interests and to fair, honest and decent treatment. Imposing additional financial obligations through an allegedly unlawful process is therefore said to have violated their consumer rights.
55. Under Article 43(1)(f), they argue that although private schools are entitled to charge fees, school fees directly affect children's ability to remain in education. Decisions affecting access to education must therefore comply with the Constitution and the statutory safeguards for parental participation.
56. Finally, under Article 53 and the best interests of the child principle, they submit that increased school fees affect affordability and continuity of education. The Respondents were therefore required to make the decision through procedures genuinely safeguarding children's welfare and educational interests. They argue that institutional financial interests alone cannot satisfy the constitutional best-interests requirement.
57. On whether the Petitioners are entitled to the orders sought, the Petitioners submit that the cumulative effect of the Respondents' conduct was not a mere procedural irregularity, it allegedly undermined the rule of law, meaningful parental participation, procedural fairness, consumer protection and children's access to education. They consequently seek a declaration that the fee increment is unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid.
58. On remedies, they rely on Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others and Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority & 2 Others for the principles governing effective constitutional remedies and the High Court's broad remedial jurisdiction under Article 23.
59. The Petitioners ultimately submit that they have established that the 1st Respondent failed to comply with section 55(3) and the Third Schedule to the Basic Education Act, that the process leading to the fee increase failed the constitutional standards of legality, transparency, accountability, meaningful participation and procedural fairness; and that the resulting decision violated Articles 10, 43(1)(f), 46, 47 and 53 of the Constitution . They accordingly ask the Court to allow the Petition, grant the declarations and consequential reliefs sought, and award them costs.
The 1 st Respondents Submissions
60. The 1 st Respondent filed written submissions in opposition to the Petition dated 21 July 2026 and urges the Court to dismiss it with costs.
61. The 1 st Respondent explains that it is an organization incorporated under the Societies Act, operating private schools whose relationship with parents is contractual. It states that Oshwal Academy Nairobi and Mombasa are managed by the Board pursuant to its Constitution and By-laws. According to the submissions, the fee increase was discussed and approved during the 84th Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Shree Visa Oshwal Community Centre, held on 15 May 2026.It further states that delegates representing members of the school community attended the AGM, where the proposed increase in operational expenditure for the period up to August 2027 was considered and approved. Following that AGM, parents were issued with a notice dated 29 May 2026, giving approximately three months' notice before implementation of the revised fees.
62. The Respondent identifies the reasons for the increment as, rising operational costs, including fuel, electricity
[...truncated]
I. A declaration that the decision of the 1 st Respondent to increase school fees without consultation with or participation of the parents either directly or through their lawfully constituted Parents Association within the meaning of the Basic Education Act is a violation of the Basic Education Act and by extension a threat to the Rule of Law and a breach of the constitutional guarantee to equal protection and equal benefit of the law hence the same is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.
II. A declaration that the decision of the 1 st Respondent to increase school fees is an arbitrary act and that the same violates the rights of the parents, guardians and the affected children to fair administrative action within the meaning of Article 47 of the constitution, consumer protection within the meaning of Article 46 of the constitution and best interest of the minor learners within the meaning of Article 53 of the constitution hence the same is unconstitutional and unlawful and of no legal effect.
III. A declaration that the 1 st Respondent does not have a lawfully established Parents Teachers Association and the purported members of the Executive Committee are in office illegally since they were never elected by parents at an Annual General Meeting and their mandate has never been renewed or ratified at any subsequent Annual General Meeting as by law required.
IV. An order of mandamus directing the 1 st Respondent to immediately commence the process of establishing a legal and constitutional Parents' Teachers Association and to involve the Petitioners fully in that process including the election of members of the Executive Committee of the Parents Teachers Association.
V. Costs of an incidental to this Petition.
The Petitioners’ Case
2. The Petition is supported by the affidavit sworn by Erick Ngala, with the co-petitioner’s authority, on 21 st July 2026.
3. The deponent avers that all parents, including the Petitioners, received a notice from the 1 st Respondent in the form of a fees structure for the 2026/2027 academic year informing the parents that, with effect from September 2026, school fees would be increased for all parents and learners . The new fees structure is annexed as EN-2. He further annexes as EN-3 copies of the current fees structures applicable before the proposed increase , to demonstrate the difference between the existing fees and the fees proposed to take effect in September 2026.
4. That following receipt of the notice of increase, some parents protested against the proposed increase, the parents also demanded a meeting with the 1 st Respondent to address the issue of the increase in school fees vide a letter annexed as EN-4. The 1 st Respondent responded to the parents and promised to issue a formal response within 10 days from the date of the parents' letters.
5. The deponent states that the 1 st Respondent subsequently wrote to the parents and effectively reaffirmed its decision to increase the school fees, notwithstanding the issues raised by the parents concerning the alleged illegalities and unreasonableness relating to the fee increase. According to the deponent, the school's decision to proceed with implementation of what he describes as a “ patently unlawful and unreasonable decision” left the parents and learners with no other option: but to seek this court’s intervention.
6. That the parents and Petitioners are reasonably apprehensive that, because the notice of fee increase has not been recalled, the increased fees will take effect in September 2026 , when the new school term begins, unless stopped by the Court. The deponent states that the parents and learners stand to suffer great prejudice if the orders sought are not granted, identifying two specific forms of prejudice: the risk of denial of education if the increased fee isn’t paid and, that parents would be subjected to payment of penalties if fees are paid late , because imposing penalties for late payment is part of the 1st Respondent's operational policy.
7. The Deponent stresses that the above prejudice would occur despite the decision to increase the fees was allegedly reached without any consultation with the parents and that the school allegedly does not have any functional Parents Teachers Association (PTA), despite the Court having ordered the establishment of one in the 2020 decision.
8. The Deponent states that in 2020, parents of learners at the 1 st Respondent's schools instituted a constitutional petition against the Respondents and among the matters challenged was the 1st Respondent's alleged refusal to facilitate the establishment of a Parents Teachers Association. The Deponent states that, while purporting to obey the Court order , the 1 st Respondent unilaterally appointed members of the Executive Committee of a Parents Teachers Association in 2021 who have remained in office to date. That in order for the Executive Committee of a Parents Teachers Association to be lawfully constituted, its members must be elected annually by the parents at an Annual General Meeting (AGM) and hence the current c ommittee was not elected by the parents and it is illegal and unconstitutional.
9. The Deponents states that in the absence of a duly constituted PTA and its Committee, the decision to increase school fees was made unlawfully as it is the Parents Teachers Association whose function it is to discuss and agree on whatever fees should be levied upon parents and learners. They therefore ask for the Petition to be allowed.
10. Further, in a further affidavit dated 7 th August, 2026 , filed in response to the two Replying Affidavits of Jyotsna Chotai and Shubhrika Mohitey, both sworn on 28 July 2026, and the Grounds of Opposition filed by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on 29 th July 2026.
11. The deponent hence states that the school may have contractual powers and internal governance structures but those powers are subject to the Constitution and statutory obligations, the fee increase directly affects parents and children's access to education and therefore parents had to be meaningfully consulted through the legally recognized Parents Association before the decision was made. That the Respondents have not demonstrated that such consultation occurred, the AGM and subsequent circular cannot cure that defect because both occurred within the school's internal governance/notification process rather than through a lawfully constituted Parents Association.
The 1 st Respondent’s case
12. The 1 st Respondent filed two affidavits in opposition to the petition. The replying Affidavit sworn by Jyotsna Chotai, the Academic Consultant of the 1st Respondent states that :
13. The 1 st Respondents schools are private schools and not public schools and since the schools are not funded by Government resources parents enter into individual contractual arrangements with the respective schools, under which they undertake to pay tuition fees and other charges. The Respondent therefore argues that the Court should not interfere with or rewrite the terms of the private contractual agreements between individual parents and the school. They state that the Petitioners have improperly constitutionalized what is essentially a private contractual dispute and that the Petition is therefore incompetent, bad in law, and should be dismissed with costs.
14. The 1 st Respondent argues that no formal authority to act or plead from the alleged parents has been annexed to either the application or Petition. Consequently, the Respondent contends that the proceedings are essentially an individualistic endeavour, rather than a genuine public-interest action. The Respondent alleges that the proceedings are another attempt by the 1 st Petitioner to wage “political wars” against members of the Board. It relies on a WhatsApp message allegedly posted by the 1 st Petitioner on an Oshwal Parents forum on 12 June 2026, the Respondent reproduces the message in which the Petitioner allegedly threatened to identify the Board members' businesses, residences, temples and hotels and encourage Kenyans to boycott their goods and services. The message is annexed as JC 3 .
15. The Respondent states that it is an organization incorporated under the Societies Act, Cap 108, and operates under a constitution and by-laws revised in 2025. It operates five private school which provide education under the Cambridge International and Edexcel Systems, and maintain an average student-to-teacher ratio of approximately 8:1.
16. The Respondent strongly denies the allegation that the proposed fee increment was illegal, unilateral or arbitrary. The Deponent states that every fee increment is informed by, the organization’s operational demands, its budget, prevailing economic conditions and the need to minimize the economic impact on parents and the wider community. The Respondent maintains that fee increments have occurred over the years and that the 2026/2027 increase is not unusual. It provides a year-by-year comparison covering approximately 11 years to demonstrate that the Petitioners' allegation that the increase was arbitrary is unfounded. Importantly, the Respondent points out that there were no fee increases in several academic years, characterizing the proposed 2026/2027 increase as modest and justifiable, particularly considering prevailing inflation and economic conditions.
17. The Respondent states that it convened its 84 th Annual General Meeting (AGM) at the Shree Visa Oshwal Community Centre, Nairobi, between 15 and 17 May 2026.The meeting was preceded by notice to members and among the agenda items were the approval of the operational budget up to August 2027 and that parents and learners participated and there was no objection to the 6% fee increase as evidenced by the minutes attached. That parents were given three months' notice before the increased fees were to become effective. Consequently, denying that the fee increase was unilateral or arbitrary.
18. The Respondent states that the increase was justified by several factors, including, rising operational costs like f uel, electricity, water and general maintenance. The Respondent attributes these increases to the prevailing cost of living in Kenya, the need to attract and retain qualified and dedicated teachers through competitive remuneration packages. As well as investing on learning resources and technology and improvements to facilities.
19. The Respondent describes the 6% increase as modest and says that it is in the best interests of the students. It further states that the fee increase is necessary to sustain premium and seamless educational services. The Respondent disputes the Petitioners' claim that parents cannot afford the increased fees. The Petitioners have produced no evidence of inability to pay and there is no evidence that their children have been denied access to teaching and learning because of fees and that each of its more than 2,000 students is insured with a reputable insurance company.
20. The Respondent further compares its fees with those charged by other schools of a similar stature, namely, Nairobi International School, Brookhouse Schools, Sabis International School; and Crawford International School. The Respondent therefore argues that its fees remain cheaper than comparable schools.
21. The Respondent denies that the fee increase violates, the Constitution, Basic Education Act, Children Act or Consumer Protection Act, since constitutional rights cannot be said to have been infringed in relation to private contractual agreements between parents and the school.It further argues that the High Court is not clothed with jurisdiction to determine the terms of the contractual agreements between the school and parents where consultation has been undertaken and complied with.Thus, the Respondent's position is that the dispute is fundamentally contractual and that the constitutional jurisdiction of the Court should not be invoked to interfere with the parties' private contractual arrangements.
22. The Respondent acknowledges the decision of 3 September 2020 in OAPA (Suing as Parents or Guardians of Students Minors Currently Schooling at Oshwal Academy) v Oshwal Education & Relief Board & Others [2020] eKLR. Stating that it established a Parents Teachers Association. It sets out the PTA Executive Committee, including representatives for different years/classes and the PTA leadership and that this PTA has been in existence since 2021.
23. The Respondent strongly disputes the Petitioners' assertion that the PTA is non-functional or unlawfully constituted, that the PTA members have been vibrant and actively involved in the running of school activities in compliance with section 55 of the Basic Education Act. The Respondent further argues that the Petitioners have produced no evidence whatsoever demonstrating how the PTA has failed to comply with section 55 of the Basic Education Act.
24. It argues that the Petitioners have merely made sensational allegations that the 6% increase places fees beyond parents' reach and threatens the right to compulsory education. According to the Respondent, no evidence has been produced demonstrating that the increased fees are actually beyond the parents' means and that parents are paying the fees.
25. The Respondent states that if conservatory orders are issued, it will suffer considerable loss of revenue, which loss would allegedly stifle or cripple its activities, including the capital expenditure programme approved at the AGM. They therefore ask for dismissal of the petition.
26. There is another Replying affidavit sworn by Shubhrika Mohitey, who describes herself as the Chairperson of the Parents-Teachers Association (PTA) of Oshwal Education and Relief Board opposing the petition.
27. The deponent states that, contrary to the Petitioners’ contention, the 1 st Respondent has had a vibrant PTA since 2021 , with an executive committee comprising representatives from the different school years. She sets out the current PTA membership, including herself as PTA Chairlady and Rishit Karania as Vice Chair. She states that the PTA Executive Committee has held several meetings since 2021 concerning the welfare of learners and has worked amicably with the 1 st Respondent in organizing school activities. As an example, she refers to a magic show organized for students in March 2026 . She annexes a bundle of minutes and other documents marked “SM 1” as evidence of the PTA's activities.
28. According to the deponent, the PTA enjoys a measure of independence, with the 1 st Respondent merely facilitating its activities. She emphasizes that the PTA does not participate in the day-to-day management of the 1 st Respondent’s schools. She further states that the schools are wholly owned and managed by the 1 st Respondent and that the Board's support enables it to provide education as a private entity.
29. On the question of school fees, the deponent states that the PTA is aware that the tuition fees charged by the 1st Respondent are significantly lower than those charged by other international schools of similar stature. Of particular importance, she states that a 6% fee increment was approved at an Annual General Meeting held between 15 and 17 May 2026. The AGM was attended by delegates representing members of the Oshwal community and was hosted and run by the 1st Respondent. According to the affidavit, some of those delegates were themselves parents or guardians of learners at Oshwal Academy Nairobi and Mombasa.
30. The deponent further states that the PTA, as the umbrella body representing parents of the 1st Respondent, does not oppose the 6% fee increment. In her view, considering the prevailing economic situation in the country, the increment is modest and understandable.
31. She opposes the grant of the conservatory orders sought by the Petitioners, contending that such orders would negatively affect students' learning from September 2026 and would therefore not be in the interests of the parents and teachers whom she represents. She consequently urges the Court to decline the Petition and the application dated 21 July 2026, with costs.
The 2 nd and 3 rd Respondents case
32. The Attorney General filed grounds of opposition dated 29 th July,2026 in opposition to the petition, their position is essentially that the Petitioners have failed to establish any constitutional basis for the Court to interfere with the 1st Respondent’s internal governance and decision to increase school fees.
33. The Respondents contend that the Petitioners do not challenge the constitutionality of the Basic Education Act, 2013 or the regulations made under it. Consequently, the Act continues to enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. They argue that, without challenging the enabling statutory framework, the Petitioners cannot obtain constitutional relief against the 1 st Respondent’s internal governance arrangements.
34. The Respondents further contend that the 1 st Respondent is a private institution operating independently of public funding and that decisions concerning its operations and school fees fall within its proprietary and contractual autonomy protected under Article 40 of the Constitution. Parents voluntarily enroll their children on published terms, which include the school's right to review its fees. According to the Respondents, the Petitioners have not demonstrated any contractual or statutory requirement obliging the school to obtain the prior consent of the Parents-Teachers Association (PTA) before reviewing fees
35. On the role of the PTA, the Respondents argues that the PTA's role regarding fees is merely consultative and advisory rather than decisional. They maintain that fee setting remains the prerogative of the proprietor or Board of Management. Accordingly, even if consultation with the PTA were shown to have been inadequate, such inadequacy would not, in their view, render the fee increment unlawful or liable to be quashed.
36. The Respondents also invoke the presumption of legality and regularity, arguing that acts undertaken in accordance with the law are presumed valid and procedurally proper unless the contrary is established. On that basis, they contend that the school's existing Executive Committee and governance structures remain valid and operational and that administrative and financial resolutions made by those bodies are legally valid unless formally set aside.
37. Regarding the Petitioners' allegation that the AGM was illegally constituted, the Respondents characterize this as a collateral attack on the school's management. They contend that if the Petitioners' complaint is that the school failed to comply with a previous judgment, the appropriate remedy is to pursue execution or contempt proceedings, rather than instituting a fresh constitutional petition.
38. Ultimately, the Respondents maintain that the Petition is incompetent, misconceived, misplaced and an abuse of the Court process, because no violation of the Petitioners' constitutional rights or fundamental freedoms has been established. They therefore pray that the Petition be dismissed with costs.
Petitioners submissions
39. The Petitioners’ submissions dated 7 August 2026 support the Petition dated 21 st July 2026 challenging the 1st Respondent’s decision to increase school fees for the 2026/2027 academic year. Their central case is that although the 1 st Respondent is a private educational institution, it remains bound by the Constitution, the Basic Education Act, the Children’s Act and the Consumer Protection Act, and could not lawfully increase fees without complying with the statutory framework governing parental participation.
40. They identified 5 issues :
I. Whether the dispute raises justiciable constitutional questions or is merely contractual.
II. Whether they have locus standi.
III. Whether the 1st Respondent complied with the Basic Education Act in constituting a Parents Association and consulting parents before increasing fees.
IV. Whether the increment violated Articles 10, 43(1)(f), 46, 47 and 53 of the Constitution; and
V. Whether they are entitled to the constitutional reliefs sought.
41. On whether the dispute raises justiciable constitutional questions or is merely contractual, the Petitioners reject the Respondents’ argument that the dispute is purely contractual. They submit that they are not asking the Court to interpret or enforce the contractual terms governing enrolment or seeking damages for breach of contract. Rather, they challenge the legality and constitutionality of the process through which the school exercised powers regulated by the Basic Education Act and allege violations of constitutional rights.
42. They rely on Articles 22, 23, 165(3)(b) and 165(3)(d) of the Constitution, arguing that the High Court has jurisdiction to determine allegations of violations of fundamental rights and questions concerning whether an act or omission contravenes the Constitution. They contend that private contractual arrangements cannot displace mandatory statutory obligations imposed by section 55(3) and the Third Schedule to the Basic Education Act.
43. On standing, the Petitioners rely on Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution, which they submit deliberately confer broad standing in constitutional litigation. They are parents of learners at the 1 st Respondent's schools and state that they bring the Petition in their own interests, on behalf of their children, other similarly situated parents and learners, and in the public interest. They argue that they therefore do not require written authority from every affected parent.
44. They rely on Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others for the proposition that Articles 22 and 258 liberalized the rules on standing and removed restrictive common-law barriers to constitutional litigation. They further argue that because the fee increase applies generally across the school community, the legal issues are common to all affected parents and learners and may properly be determined in one constitutional Petition.
45. On the third issue, the Petitioners rely on section 55(3) of the Basic Education Act, which requires every private school to establish a Parents Association. They emphasize that the word “shall” makes this a mandatory obligation. They further argue that the Third Schedule prescribes the Association's composition, election of its Executive Committee, representation, tenure, governance structure and statutory functions.
46. Accordingly, the Petitioners submit that merely convening an AGM or establishing an internally constituted parents' body does not amount to compliance. Their contention is that the body relied upon by the 1 st Respondent does not correspond with the statutory Parents Association contemplated by section 55(3) and the Third Schedule.
47. Substantial reliance is placed on OAPA (Suing as Parents or Guardians of Student Minors Currently Schooling at Oshwal Academy) v Oshwal Education & Relief Board & 3 Others , in which the Court had previously held that establishment of a PTA under the Basic Education Act was mandatory and issued mandamus compelling the 1st Respondent to establish one in accordance with the law. The Petitioners therefore contend that the 1 st Respondent was already aware of its statutory obligation following that 2020 judgment.
48. They further distinguish between an AGM and a Parents Association . Their position is that the AGM is merely the forum through which parents elect the Executive Committee, whereas the Parents Association is the continuing statutory body entrusted with governance responsibilities, including considering and recommending school charges. Consequently, an AGM cannot substitute for the statutory Parents Association.
49. The Petitioners also rely heavily on Mutua & 6 Others (Suing on their Own Behalf and on Behalf of 1,000 Others) v St Bakhita Schools Limited & 3 Others [2024] KEHC 8804 (KLR) , which similarly concerned a private school's increase of school fees and the role of the PTA. They submit that the Court in Mutua found the alteration of the fees structure in the circumstances of that case to be unacceptable, unconscionable, unfair and unjust, and contrary to Article 47. The decision also recognised the PTA's statutory role in school financial planning and matters affecting learners' welfare.
50. The Petitioners rely particularly on the Court's reasoning that a private school is not exempt from constitutional and statutory obligations merely because it is privately owned. They therefore contend that school management cannot unilaterally increase fees without engaging the PTA as contemplated by the Basic Education Act.
51. Their ultimate position on this issue is that the fee increase was undertaken without meaningful participation of a duly constituted statutory Parents Association, and cannot be validated merely because it was approved through the school's internal governance structures or an AGM.
52. On the alleged constitutional provisions violated, the Petitioners contend that the procedural defects resulted in several constitutional violations. Under Article 10, they argue that bypassing the statutory Parents Association deprived parents of the meaningful participation contemplated by Parliament and failed to meet the standards of transparency, accountability and participation.
53. Under Article 47, they characterize the fee increase as an administrative decision affecting parents' financial obligations, legitimate expectations and children's access to education. They submit that failure to follow mandatory statutory procedures rendered the decision neither lawful nor procedurally fair. They rely on Judicial Service Commission v Mbalu Mutava & Another regarding the constitutional character of fair administrative action.
54. Under Article 46, the Petitioners contend that parents paying for educational services are consumers entitled to protection of their economic interests and to fair, honest and decent treatment. Imposing additional financial obligations through an allegedly unlawful process is therefore said to have violated their consumer rights.
55. Under Article 43(1)(f), they argue that although private schools are entitled to charge fees, school fees directly affect children's ability to remain in education. Decisions affecting access to education must therefore comply with the Constitution and the statutory safeguards for parental participation.
56. Finally, under Article 53 and the best interests of the child principle, they submit that increased school fees affect affordability and continuity of education. The Respondents were therefore required to make the decision through procedures genuinely safeguarding children's welfare and educational interests. They argue that institutional financial interests alone cannot satisfy the constitutional best-interests requirement.
57. On whether the Petitioners are entitled to the orders sought, the Petitioners submit that the cumulative effect of the Respondents' conduct was not a mere procedural irregularity, it allegedly undermined the rule of law, meaningful parental participation, procedural fairness, consumer protection and children's access to education. They consequently seek a declaration that the fee increment is unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid.
58. On remedies, they rely on Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others and Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority & 2 Others for the principles governing effective constitutional remedies and the High Court's broad remedial jurisdiction under Article 23.
59. The Petitioners ultimately submit that they have established that the 1st Respondent failed to comply with section 55(3) and the Third Schedule to the Basic Education Act, that the process leading to the fee increase failed the constitutional standards of legality, transparency, accountability, meaningful participation and procedural fairness; and that the resulting decision violated Articles 10, 43(1)(f), 46, 47 and 53 of the Constitution . They accordingly ask the Court to allow the Petition, grant the declarations and consequential reliefs sought, and award them costs.
The 1 st Respondents Submissions
60. The 1 st Respondent filed written submissions in opposition to the Petition dated 21 July 2026 and urges the Court to dismiss it with costs.
61. The 1 st Respondent explains that it is an organization incorporated under the Societies Act, operating private schools whose relationship with parents is contractual. It states that Oshwal Academy Nairobi and Mombasa are managed by the Board pursuant to its Constitution and By-laws. According to the submissions, the fee increase was discussed and approved during the 84th Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Shree Visa Oshwal Community Centre, held on 15 May 2026.It further states that delegates representing members of the school community attended the AGM, where the proposed increase in operational expenditure for the period up to August 2027 was considered and approved. Following that AGM, parents were issued with a notice dated 29 May 2026, giving approximately three months' notice before implementation of the revised fees.
62. The Respondent identifies the reasons for the increment as, rising operational costs, including fuel, electricity
[...truncated]