1. The two Petitions before this Court filed on 2nd June 2026 and 4th June 2026 respectively and subsequently consolidated by an order of this Court raise fundamental constitutional questions concerning the intersection of school discipline, the right to education and the limits of administrative authority in our constitutional democracy.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to these Petitions is in broad terms not substantially in dispute. On or about the night of 18th May 2026, a student unrest erupted at Ambira High School, a public secondary school in Ugunja, Siaya County. The unrest which escalated into the early morning of 19th May 2026 resulted in widespread destruction of school infrastructure including the principal’s office, the Bursar's office, the staffroom, the computer laboratory, classrooms, dormitories and various other school facilities. The school was subsequently closed indefinitely.
3. Following the unrest, the school administration, acting through the purported Board of Management and a multi-agency team convened a series of meetings. On 29th May 2026, a special Board of Management and multi-agency meeting was held at which it was resolved that each of the approximately 1,515 students at the school would be required to pay Kenya Shillings Thirty-Three Thousand (Kshs. 33,000/=) as a "penalty on damage" to cover the cost of repairs estimated by the Department of Public Works at approximately Kshs. 50 million. This decision was communicated to parents through a circular dated 30th May 2026 which made payment of the said levy a mandatory precondition for readmission of students to the school.
4. It is this decision that forms the subject of the present Petitions. The Petitioners who are parents of students at Ambira High School and officials/members of the Ambira Boys Community Based Organization challenge the constitutionality and legality of the impugned levy on multiple grounds. They contend that the levy was imposed arbitrarily, without consultation, without due process and without lawful authority. They further contend that the collective nature of the levy imposed uniformly on all students regardless of individual culpability or involvement in the unrest constitutes unconstitutional collective punishment. Most critically, they argue that conditioning readmission to school on payment of the levy violates the constitutional right to education guaranteed under Articles 43(1)(f) and 53(1)(b) of the Constitution
5. In Petition No. E006 of 2026, the Petitioners seek the following reliefs; a declaration that the imposition of the blanket levy/penalty of Kshs. 33,000/= per student is unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect as it violates Article 10, 27,29,43,47, 50 and 53 of the Constitution of Kenya; a declaration that the Board of Management of Ambira High School whose mandate has expired has no lawful authority to make any decision or impose any levy or otherwise purport to govern the school under new Board of Management is duly constituted in accordance with the Basic Education Act No.14 of 2023; a declaration that conditioning students' readmission on payment of the said levy constitutes unlawful interference with the constitutional right to education guaranteed under Articles 43(1) (f) and 53(1)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya; a permanent Injunction restraining the Respondents from demanding, collecting, enforcing or imposing the levy of Ksh.33,000/= or any similar penalty on students or parents/guardians of Ambira High school; an order of Certiorari quashing the decision contained in the circular of 30th May 2026 requiring payment of Ksh.33,000/= per student as a condition for readmission; an order of Mandamus compelling the Respondents to immediately and unconditionally readmit all students who were denied readmission solely on account of non-payment of the impugned levy; an order directing the 5 th Respondent to constitute a new lawfully appointed Board of Management for Ambira High School within thirty (30) days of the judgement herein; cost of this petition be borne by the Respondent; any other relief that this Honourable court may deem just, necessary and appropriate in circumstances.
6. In Petition No. E008 of 2026, the Petitioners (who are 165 parents of Grade 10 students at the school) seek similar reliefs as follows; the Honorable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the decision by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to demand for cost of damages/penalty of Kshs.33,000/= from the students of Grade 10 at Ambira High School through the letter dated 30th May 2026 is illegal, null and void ab initio and therefore the Respondents and their employees, servants and or agents should cease from demanding for the said sum from the Petitioners; this Honorable Court be Pleased to hold and declare that the decision by the Respondents to deny entry to school for the Petitioner's children through the letter dated 30th May 2026 is illegal, null and void ab initio ; an Order of Permanent Injunction restraining the Respondents either by their servants or agents or employees and or any other claiming under them from compelling the Petitioners to pay Kshs.33,000/= before their children who are Grade 10 at Ambira High School are admitted to school; an Order directing the Respondents to admit the Petitioners' children back to school unconditionally; the Honourable Court be pleased to award the Petitioners exemplary damages against the Respondents jointly and severally for breach of the Petitioners' children's fundamental rights as envisioned in Article 53(1),(b), 43(f), 29(d) & (f) and Article 50(1) & (2) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; the Honourable Court be pleased to order the 1st and 2nd Respondents to compensate the Petitioners for the loss of the Petitioner's children property including boxes, mattresses, bed sheets, uniforms, books and other stationeries and the Petitioner's children personal effects which were left behind in the school after the 1st Respondent ordered all students to leave the school and sent them home without giving them a chance to collect their personal belongings which have been confirmed missing/stolen from the school; the Honourable Court be pleased to order for the disbandment of the Board of Management/2nd Respondent and a new Board of Management of Ambira High School be constituted with immediate effect; the Honourable Court be pleased to order the 4th Respondent to take disciplinary measures against the mentioned teachers of Ambira High School namely; Teacher Aswani, Teacher Zablon, the School Chaplain Mr. Wesonga and any other Teacher who have been condoning the rampant vice/behavior touching on homosexuality/sodomy and shielding/protecting the culprits/the students accused of perpetrating the said behavior; the Honourable Court be pleased to order the 1st and 2nd Respondents to tender the School's Safety Manual in adherence to the Ministry of Education's School Safety Rules and Regulations and table evidence of compliance giving detailed information on areas covered in terms of CCTV installations, Fire Extinguishers available, Bed spacing, Dormitory entry and exit points, the distance between the Kitchen and the Dormitories, the location of the Gas Cylinders /Boilers and any other inflammatory objects among other safety requirements; the Honourable Court be pleased to issue a declaration that the 1st and 2nd Respondent's be held jointly and severally responsible for any future loss, damage or caused by the student's unrest/strike emanating from similar issues/root cause being the continued practice of homosexuality/gayism or sodomy in the school and the 3rd and 4th Respondent be at liberty to institute drastic measures to stop the said vice in case the 1st and 2nd Respondents abdicates their role, condone, encourage or instigate the unrest as a result of their own negligence and the 3rd and 4th Respondents to also be at liberty to take drastic measures against the 1st and 2nd Respondents including but not limited to disciplinary measures, dismissal of the 1st Respondent from the Teachers service and disbandment of the Board of Management among other measures to be deployed to curb the vice from spiraling out of control within the school; the costs consequent upon this Petition be borne by the Respondents in any event on indemnity basis; the Honourable Court do award interest on (e) and (f) at the prevailing bank rates from the date of filing of suit till payment in full and the Honourable Court do make any such other or further Orders as it may deem just and expedient in the circumstances in enforcing violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioners.
7. The Petitioners in both Petitions contend that the impugned levy violates Articles 10 (national values and principles of governance), 27 (equality and freedom from discrimination), 29 (freedom and security of the person), 43(1)(f) (right to education), 47 (right to fair administrative action), 50 (right to a fair hearing) and 53(1)(b) and (2) (rights of the child including free and compulsory basic education and the best interests of the child) of the Constitution.
8. The Respondents through the replying affidavit of BOAZ ADIT, the Chief Principal of Ambira High School sworn on 7th July 2026 oppose the petitions. It was contended inter alia by the respondents; that the 2nd Respondent, Boaz Adit is the Chief Principal of Ambira High School which has an enrollment of over 1,500 students; that sections 55, 56 and 59 of the Basic Education Act 2013 establish the Board of Management of every public school, its composition and its functions; that the 1st Respondent was properly constituted referencing an attached letter of appointment dated 21st January 2025 issued by the Ministry of Education through the Sub-County Director of Education, Ugunja; that all statutory mandates executed by the 1st Respondent were valid and enforceable; that the 1st Petitioner, Fredrick Bunde was misleading the Court by claiming to be a parent at the school as he had transferred his son on 13th May 2026 as evidenced by an attached student clearance form; that on the morning of 18th May 2026 a Grade 10 pupil reported to his office that Form 4 students were making sexual advances toward him an issue previously reported to a teacher; that following the report, he summoned the teacher and directed further investigations into allegations of sodomy within the institution; that upon gathering sufficient evidence, one student was sent home and later that afternoon he held a meeting with the Form 4 cohort; that during the meeting, issues regarding national examination malpractice, sodomy and a proposal for 8:00 PM tea were raised; that he assured the students that investigations would be conducted and stern action taken against anyone forcing sexual advances on fellow students; that he cautioned the Form 4 students that examination cheating would not be tolerated, reassured them of teacher commitment to their academic needs and encouraged hard work. ; that regarding the 8:00 PM tea request, he informed them that it had financial implications and would require prior discussion with parents; that the meeting concluded at approximately 6:00 PM, after which students proceeded for supper.; that at around 8:00 PM on 18th May 2026, the deponent heard commotion and that he rushed to the administration block and found teachers attempting in vain to calm agitated students; that the rioting students explicitly demanded the immediate surrender of the school Head Boy to subject him to physical assault, necessitating his emergency evacuation and secure hiding.; that the law enforcement officers arrived and rescued the Head Boy, taking him to the police station however, this intervention provoked further hostility leading to full-scale rioting and wanton property destruction; that he emphasized that he owed a non-delegable duty of care to protect all students including those accused of sodomy shielding them from student hostility, vigilantism or premature discipline pending official investigations; that as the unrest escalated, efforts to pacify the students failed as they threw stones directly at the staff and him while expanding the destruction; that the destruction occurred in darkness as rioting students deliberately vandalized lighting infrastructure making individual identification impossible; that on the morning of 19th May 2026 at 7:00 AM, a multi-agency meeting comprising the BOM, County Director of Education, SCDE, OCPD, TSC County Director, and NIS officers resolved to close the school indefinitely, schedule an immediate parents' meeting and convene the BOM to determine the way forward; that he formally notified the County Education Board of the closure via a letter dated 19th May 2026; that a team of Ministry of Education and Quality Assurance officers conducted a field evaluation producing a Standard Assessment Report dated 19th May 2026; that on 21st May 2026, the BOM held a meeting with teachers, PTA representatives, parents and officials in the main hall; he described the atmosphere as volatile stating that parents shouted down both the BOM Chairman and the PTA Representative, Mr. Benjamin Siguda; that Due to the hostility, the Sub-County Director, Mr. Bonface Otula was unable to deliver his speech; that the Ambira Boys Community-Based Organization predominantly comprising Grade 10 parents and led by Chairman Fredrick Bunde (1st Petitioner) and patron Eng. Mark Onyango hijacked proceedings; that this group insisted that the Grade 10 cohort was entirely innocent and should face no administrative measures; that he presented a chronological account of events during the meeting; that the Public Works officer tabled a preliminary report detailing widespread destruction affecting the Principal's office, Secretary's office, Bursar's office, Reception, Store, Deputy Principals' offices, Welfare office, Staffroom, Staff toilets, Strong room, Health room, Departmental offices, Shaving room, Teachers' quarters, TV dish, Canteen, Lighting rooms, Biometric equipment, Window panes, Unity Hall, Kitchen, Gate sentry boxes, Dormitories, Perimeter wall and Fencing; he denied making statements that the strike was carried out exclusively by Form 3 and 4 students, or offering commitments that Grade 10 pupils would be exempt from disciplinary measures; that he gave no personal commitments to exempt Grade 10 parents from repair contributions; that because the riot occurred in total darkness, individual participation could not be isolated; that a Grade 10 student (Adm. No. 13185) was recently captured on CCTV attempting to sabotage security cameras disproving claims of complete Grade 10 innocence; that exempting students was outside his personal purview as student discipline falls under the BOM's statutory duty to report to the County Education Board under Section 59(f) of the Basic Education Act; that the BOM's statutory mandate to protect property and appoint loss assessors to evaluate damage and restore facilities; that the Director of Public Works submitted two reports dated 28th May 2026: one estimating building repairs at Kshs. 21,061,661.80 and a consolidated assessment covering all works totaling Kshs. 50,003,110.80; that following these reports, a special joint BOM and multi-agency meeting was held on 29th May 2026.; that It was unanimously resolved that since individual responsibility could not be apportioned, all students would bear repair costs equally set at Kshs. 33,000/= per student; that the Kshs. 33,000/= levy was lawfully arrived at following consultations pursuant to Regulations 33(c), (d), 35 and 36(1)(b) of the Basic Education Regulations 2015; that wanton property destruction constitutes mass indiscipline, empowering authorities to prescribe readmission conditions under Regulation 36(1)(b);that Article 47 of the Constitution could not be invoked, as parents were engaged through consultative meetings and PTA representatives; the levy was purely for restoring the learning environment; that the demand was not a fee increment or illegal levy but recovery compensation for damage caused to public infrastructure; that he denied constitutional violations, noting the school held back students lawfully under Regulation 35(1) for less than two weeks before organizing readmission; that reopening dates were set in compliance with Article 53(1)(b) and Regulation 35(1): Grade 10 on 31st May 2026, Form 4 on 3rd June 2026, Form 3 on 5th June 2026 and all students by 8th June 2026; that he denied claims that students were barred from entry without full upfront payment noting no proof of exclusion was attached to the Petitions; that many students had been readmitted after paying full or partial amounts and signing damage commitment forms for remaining balances; that learning had resumed despite ongoing institutional hardships; that non-reporting by any student was down to personal parental choice as the school remained open to case-by-case engagements; that the Petitioners failed to show proof of any specific student being denied access to education; that without naming affected students, the Petitions remained speculative and premature; that it was fair and just for students to bear repair costs resulting from their indiscipline; that the school operates on tight Ministry capitation budgets and cannot absorb damage costs; that critical safety assets including fire extinguishers, gas systems, CCTV, and dormitories were destroyed and needed urgent restoration; that without systematic repairs funded through the damage levy, the institution faced risks of permanent closure; that public schools undergo mandatory annual government safety inspections; that courts should be slow to interfere with administrative decisions made in good faith for institutional management; that the Court find the Petitions unmerited and dismiss them with costs.
9. The petition was canvassed by way of written submissions.
10. The Petitioners pointed out that the 2nd Respondent's (Boaz Adit)’s replying affidavit exhibited an appointment letter dated 21st January 2025 as proof that the Board of Management was properly constituted. They submitted that on its face, the letter appointed thirteen named persons under Section 56(1)(a) to (f) of the Basic Education Act, 2013 but failed to designate a chairperson. Consequently, the Petitioners argued that on the Respondents' own documents, the person who had signed off on the reopening arrangements and the levy as Chairperson of the Board could not be shown to hold that office. The Petitioners humbly submitted that the appointment letter was not saved merely because it was issued in the name of a body that possessed such authority in principle. They submitted that this defect was not a mere technicality. In support of this contention, they cited Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 3 others v. Anne Waiguru, Cabinet Secretary, Devolution and Planning & 6 others [2021] eKLR , where the Court held that a decision-making authority acting outside its jurisdiction or contrary to statutory provisions commits an act of ultra vires rendering the decision illegal.
11. They further cited JEA v. Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education, Science & Technology & 3 others [2020] eKLR , where administrative action taken in the education sector without statutorily required consultation was declared ultra vires and void. Applying that reasoning, the Petitioners submitted that a levy signed off by a person whose appointment as Chairperson was unestablished and imposed by a body acting through him could not bind the students and parents of Ambira High School.
12. The Petitioners anticipated that the Respondents would rely on Regulation 36(1)(b) of the Basic Education Regulations 2015 as authority to determine readmission conditions following mass indiscipline. However, the Petitioners highlighted that the Regulation expressly vests that power in the County Education Board and not in the Board of Management, the Principal acting alone or an ad hoc "multi-agency team". The Petitioners observed that no resolution of the County Education Board (as distinct from the meetings described in paragraphs 22 and 39 of the replying affidavit dated 7th July 2026) had been placed before the Court. They therefore submitted that the levy was not made by the body designated by law.
13. The Petitioners submitted that the 2nd Respondent's own account foreclosed any claim that the levy was based on individual culpability. They noted that paragraph 34 of the Respondents' replying affidavit admitted that because the destruction occurred at night, establishing which students participated was difficult. They further noted that paragraph 40 of the same affidavit stated that all students were made to bear the cost equally precisely because there was no way of apportioning damage among those responsible. The Petitioners submitted that what the Respondents offered as a justification was on examination, an admission that no individualized assessment was ever conducted.
14. The Petitioners highlighted an internal inconsistency in the Respondents' evidence which asserted on one hand that the destruction of the lighting system made student identification impossible while asserting on the other hand that the school's CCTV system captured and identified one named student by admission number. They argued that both assertions could not be true and that in any event, the conduct of one student could not justify visiting a uniform financial penalty on over 1,500 students. In support, the Petitioners cited the decision of Justice Odunga in Republic v. Board of Management, Mbaikini Boys High School & another Ex-Parties AMK & 4 others [2022] KEHC 2281 (KLR) , which espoused that disciplinary measures cannot be arbitrary, wholesale or applied without due process and that administrators must prove individual culpability.
15. The Petitioners humbly submitted that a levy imposed on such a basis offended Article 27 of the Constitution (which guards against arbitrary differential treatment and treating a heterogeneous group as a single culpable unit) and Article 50 of the Constitution (which guarantees due process). They cited The Management Committee of Makondo Primary School and Another v. Uganda National Examination Board, HC Civil Misc Application No. 18 of 2010 , which established that no one should be condemned unheard ( audi alteram partem ), that natural justice is superior to human-made laws, and that any law or act contravening it is null and void.
16. They further cited the High Court decision of Nyamu J. (as he then was) in Kenya Bus Services Ltd & 2 Others v. Attorney General [2005] 1 KLR 787 , which asserted that while restrictions on rights must be challenged on grounds of reasonableness, proportionality and societal values. fundamental rights are inalienable and streams of constitutional justice must flow pure for all. The Petitioners concluded on this issue that a levy applied without a mechanism to separate the innocent from the guilty was not a valid disciplinary measure but a blunt exaction falling hardest on families least able to pay.
17. The Petitioners submitted that Article 47(1) of the Constitution entitles every person to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. Citing Republic v. National Police Service Commission Ex-Parte Daniel Chacha [2016] eKLR (adopting Judicial Service Commission v. Mbalu Mutava & another [2015] eKLR ) they emphasized that Article 47 marks a transformative shift to a constitutional entitlement to fairness grounded in Article 10 values.
18. The Petitioners argued that the parents' meeting of 21st May 2026 failed this standard. Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Respondents' Replying Affidavit described a meeting where the Board Chairperson, PTA representative and Sub-County Director were unable to finish speaking because parents shut them down. The Petitioners submitted that a meeting where the Respondents' own witnesses could not complete their remarks could not be relied upon as a forum of genuine consultation.
19. Citing the Supreme Court decision in British American Tobacco (BAT) Kenya Ltd v. Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Health & others [2019] eKLR , the Petitioners outlined the essential elements of meaningful public participation including clarity of subject matter, clear engagement structures, balanced influence, transparency and public sensitization.
20. They noted that the Respondents attempted to justify the levies by relying on a Ministry of Public Works Bill of Quantities estimating repair costs at approximately Kshs. 58 million. The Petitioners submitted that this document was grossly disproportionate to the damage, unexplained and never disclosed to parents. Parents were given no explanation regarding the computation or legal authority for the demands.
21. Furthermore, the Petitioners pointed out that the actual sum of Kshs. 33,000/= was not fixed at the parents' meeting, but eight days later on 29th May 2026 during a "special Board of Management and multi-agency meeting". No parents, guardians or PTA representatives attended or were consulted at that subsequent meeting. Citing Lucy Wanjiku Gitumbe & another v. Dedan Kimathi University of Technology [2016] eKLR , the Petitioners submitted that the failure to afford students or parents an opportunity to confront allegations before imposing adverse measures was fatal to the administrative process.
22. The Petitioners submitted that Articles 43(1)(f) and 53(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantee the right to education and the right of every child to free and compulsory basic education. Citing JWM (alias P) v. Board of Management [particulars withheld] High School & 2 others [2019] eKLR , they argued that access to a public school cannot be made conditional on compliance with an unlawful requirement.
23. The Petitioners contended that labeling the levy as "compensation" rather than a "fee" in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the replying affidavit did not alter the constitutional defect: monetary demands were being attached to a child's return to the classroom.
24. They argued that the Respondents' claim that no student was refused entry was inconsistent with paragraph 49 of their own replying affidavit which admitted students were readmitted only after paying at least half the levy and signing a commitment to pay the balance. The Petitioners submitted that the option to pay half was an uncommunicated litigation afterthought as the only circular issued unequivocally demanded the full Kshs. 33,000/=. They asserted that forcing families to pay part of an unlawful levy and sign an undertaking to secure class access amounted to making them purchase a constitutional right.
25. The Petitioners submitted that they had discharged their burden of proof on a balance of probabilities demonstrating that the impugned decision was unconstitutional, unlawful, irrational and procedurally unfair.
26. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v. Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others [2012] eKLR , the Petitioners reiterated that public bodies must act strictly within constitutional and statutory boundaries, failing which their actions are a nullity. They submitted that the alleged Kshs. 50 million damage assessment could not sanitize an action that lacked transparency, methodology and parental consultation.
27. Relying on Judicial Service Commission v. Mbalu Mutava & Another [2015] eKLR and Suchan Investment Limited v. Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 3 Others [2016] eKLR , the Petitioners submitted that judicial intervention was mandatory where administrative actions were illegal, irrational or procedurally improper. Emphasizing the primacy of the right to education under Articles 43(1)(f) and 53(1)(b) and citing J.K. (Suing through the mother and Next Friend C.K.) v. Board of Directors, R School & Another [2014] eKLR , the Petitioners submitted that the best interests of the child must remain paramount over administrative convenience or financial considerations. They added that the Respondents failed to show that the Board of Management had a valid statutory mandate.
28. The Petitioners noted that on 19th June 2026, the Court granted conservatory orders preserving the students' rights. They submitted that no changed circumstances existed to alter that position and citing Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v. Kenya Airports Authority & 2 Others; Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (Amicus Curiae) [2021] eKLR , argued that the Court should exercise its broad remedial powers under Article 23 to turn interim protections into permanent relief.
29. The Petitioners respectfully prayed that the Honourable Court grant the declarations, order of certiorari and mandamus and other the reliefs set out in Paragraph VI of the Petition.
30. The Respondents submitted on the legal principle that "he who alleges must prove". They noted that while the Petitioners alleged that the tenure of the 1st Respondent had expired, that no valid Board of Management existed at Ambira High School and that decisions made by the 1st Respondent were ultra vires , null and void, the Petitioners brought no evidence in support of these grave allegations. The Respondents asserted that the allegations must therefore remain unproven.
31. The Respondents referred to Sections 55, 56 and 59 of the Basic Education Act 2013 which establish the Board of Management of every public school, its composition and its statutory functions. They submitted that the 1st Respondent was properly constituted as evidenced by the appointment letter dated 21st February 2025 attached to the 2nd Respondent's Replying Affidavit issued by the Ministry of Education through the Sub-County Director of Education, Ugunja. Consequently, the Resp
[...truncated]
2. The factual matrix giving rise to these Petitions is in broad terms not substantially in dispute. On or about the night of 18th May 2026, a student unrest erupted at Ambira High School, a public secondary school in Ugunja, Siaya County. The unrest which escalated into the early morning of 19th May 2026 resulted in widespread destruction of school infrastructure including the principal’s office, the Bursar's office, the staffroom, the computer laboratory, classrooms, dormitories and various other school facilities. The school was subsequently closed indefinitely.
3. Following the unrest, the school administration, acting through the purported Board of Management and a multi-agency team convened a series of meetings. On 29th May 2026, a special Board of Management and multi-agency meeting was held at which it was resolved that each of the approximately 1,515 students at the school would be required to pay Kenya Shillings Thirty-Three Thousand (Kshs. 33,000/=) as a "penalty on damage" to cover the cost of repairs estimated by the Department of Public Works at approximately Kshs. 50 million. This decision was communicated to parents through a circular dated 30th May 2026 which made payment of the said levy a mandatory precondition for readmission of students to the school.
4. It is this decision that forms the subject of the present Petitions. The Petitioners who are parents of students at Ambira High School and officials/members of the Ambira Boys Community Based Organization challenge the constitutionality and legality of the impugned levy on multiple grounds. They contend that the levy was imposed arbitrarily, without consultation, without due process and without lawful authority. They further contend that the collective nature of the levy imposed uniformly on all students regardless of individual culpability or involvement in the unrest constitutes unconstitutional collective punishment. Most critically, they argue that conditioning readmission to school on payment of the levy violates the constitutional right to education guaranteed under Articles 43(1)(f) and 53(1)(b) of the Constitution
5. In Petition No. E006 of 2026, the Petitioners seek the following reliefs; a declaration that the imposition of the blanket levy/penalty of Kshs. 33,000/= per student is unconstitutional, null and void and of no legal effect as it violates Article 10, 27,29,43,47, 50 and 53 of the Constitution of Kenya; a declaration that the Board of Management of Ambira High School whose mandate has expired has no lawful authority to make any decision or impose any levy or otherwise purport to govern the school under new Board of Management is duly constituted in accordance with the Basic Education Act No.14 of 2023; a declaration that conditioning students' readmission on payment of the said levy constitutes unlawful interference with the constitutional right to education guaranteed under Articles 43(1) (f) and 53(1)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya; a permanent Injunction restraining the Respondents from demanding, collecting, enforcing or imposing the levy of Ksh.33,000/= or any similar penalty on students or parents/guardians of Ambira High school; an order of Certiorari quashing the decision contained in the circular of 30th May 2026 requiring payment of Ksh.33,000/= per student as a condition for readmission; an order of Mandamus compelling the Respondents to immediately and unconditionally readmit all students who were denied readmission solely on account of non-payment of the impugned levy; an order directing the 5 th Respondent to constitute a new lawfully appointed Board of Management for Ambira High School within thirty (30) days of the judgement herein; cost of this petition be borne by the Respondent; any other relief that this Honourable court may deem just, necessary and appropriate in circumstances.
6. In Petition No. E008 of 2026, the Petitioners (who are 165 parents of Grade 10 students at the school) seek similar reliefs as follows; the Honorable Court be pleased to hold and declare that the decision by the 1st and 2nd Respondents to demand for cost of damages/penalty of Kshs.33,000/= from the students of Grade 10 at Ambira High School through the letter dated 30th May 2026 is illegal, null and void ab initio and therefore the Respondents and their employees, servants and or agents should cease from demanding for the said sum from the Petitioners; this Honorable Court be Pleased to hold and declare that the decision by the Respondents to deny entry to school for the Petitioner's children through the letter dated 30th May 2026 is illegal, null and void ab initio ; an Order of Permanent Injunction restraining the Respondents either by their servants or agents or employees and or any other claiming under them from compelling the Petitioners to pay Kshs.33,000/= before their children who are Grade 10 at Ambira High School are admitted to school; an Order directing the Respondents to admit the Petitioners' children back to school unconditionally; the Honourable Court be pleased to award the Petitioners exemplary damages against the Respondents jointly and severally for breach of the Petitioners' children's fundamental rights as envisioned in Article 53(1),(b), 43(f), 29(d) & (f) and Article 50(1) & (2) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; the Honourable Court be pleased to order the 1st and 2nd Respondents to compensate the Petitioners for the loss of the Petitioner's children property including boxes, mattresses, bed sheets, uniforms, books and other stationeries and the Petitioner's children personal effects which were left behind in the school after the 1st Respondent ordered all students to leave the school and sent them home without giving them a chance to collect their personal belongings which have been confirmed missing/stolen from the school; the Honourable Court be pleased to order for the disbandment of the Board of Management/2nd Respondent and a new Board of Management of Ambira High School be constituted with immediate effect; the Honourable Court be pleased to order the 4th Respondent to take disciplinary measures against the mentioned teachers of Ambira High School namely; Teacher Aswani, Teacher Zablon, the School Chaplain Mr. Wesonga and any other Teacher who have been condoning the rampant vice/behavior touching on homosexuality/sodomy and shielding/protecting the culprits/the students accused of perpetrating the said behavior; the Honourable Court be pleased to order the 1st and 2nd Respondents to tender the School's Safety Manual in adherence to the Ministry of Education's School Safety Rules and Regulations and table evidence of compliance giving detailed information on areas covered in terms of CCTV installations, Fire Extinguishers available, Bed spacing, Dormitory entry and exit points, the distance between the Kitchen and the Dormitories, the location of the Gas Cylinders /Boilers and any other inflammatory objects among other safety requirements; the Honourable Court be pleased to issue a declaration that the 1st and 2nd Respondent's be held jointly and severally responsible for any future loss, damage or caused by the student's unrest/strike emanating from similar issues/root cause being the continued practice of homosexuality/gayism or sodomy in the school and the 3rd and 4th Respondent be at liberty to institute drastic measures to stop the said vice in case the 1st and 2nd Respondents abdicates their role, condone, encourage or instigate the unrest as a result of their own negligence and the 3rd and 4th Respondents to also be at liberty to take drastic measures against the 1st and 2nd Respondents including but not limited to disciplinary measures, dismissal of the 1st Respondent from the Teachers service and disbandment of the Board of Management among other measures to be deployed to curb the vice from spiraling out of control within the school; the costs consequent upon this Petition be borne by the Respondents in any event on indemnity basis; the Honourable Court do award interest on (e) and (f) at the prevailing bank rates from the date of filing of suit till payment in full and the Honourable Court do make any such other or further Orders as it may deem just and expedient in the circumstances in enforcing violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioners.
7. The Petitioners in both Petitions contend that the impugned levy violates Articles 10 (national values and principles of governance), 27 (equality and freedom from discrimination), 29 (freedom and security of the person), 43(1)(f) (right to education), 47 (right to fair administrative action), 50 (right to a fair hearing) and 53(1)(b) and (2) (rights of the child including free and compulsory basic education and the best interests of the child) of the Constitution.
8. The Respondents through the replying affidavit of BOAZ ADIT, the Chief Principal of Ambira High School sworn on 7th July 2026 oppose the petitions. It was contended inter alia by the respondents; that the 2nd Respondent, Boaz Adit is the Chief Principal of Ambira High School which has an enrollment of over 1,500 students; that sections 55, 56 and 59 of the Basic Education Act 2013 establish the Board of Management of every public school, its composition and its functions; that the 1st Respondent was properly constituted referencing an attached letter of appointment dated 21st January 2025 issued by the Ministry of Education through the Sub-County Director of Education, Ugunja; that all statutory mandates executed by the 1st Respondent were valid and enforceable; that the 1st Petitioner, Fredrick Bunde was misleading the Court by claiming to be a parent at the school as he had transferred his son on 13th May 2026 as evidenced by an attached student clearance form; that on the morning of 18th May 2026 a Grade 10 pupil reported to his office that Form 4 students were making sexual advances toward him an issue previously reported to a teacher; that following the report, he summoned the teacher and directed further investigations into allegations of sodomy within the institution; that upon gathering sufficient evidence, one student was sent home and later that afternoon he held a meeting with the Form 4 cohort; that during the meeting, issues regarding national examination malpractice, sodomy and a proposal for 8:00 PM tea were raised; that he assured the students that investigations would be conducted and stern action taken against anyone forcing sexual advances on fellow students; that he cautioned the Form 4 students that examination cheating would not be tolerated, reassured them of teacher commitment to their academic needs and encouraged hard work. ; that regarding the 8:00 PM tea request, he informed them that it had financial implications and would require prior discussion with parents; that the meeting concluded at approximately 6:00 PM, after which students proceeded for supper.; that at around 8:00 PM on 18th May 2026, the deponent heard commotion and that he rushed to the administration block and found teachers attempting in vain to calm agitated students; that the rioting students explicitly demanded the immediate surrender of the school Head Boy to subject him to physical assault, necessitating his emergency evacuation and secure hiding.; that the law enforcement officers arrived and rescued the Head Boy, taking him to the police station however, this intervention provoked further hostility leading to full-scale rioting and wanton property destruction; that he emphasized that he owed a non-delegable duty of care to protect all students including those accused of sodomy shielding them from student hostility, vigilantism or premature discipline pending official investigations; that as the unrest escalated, efforts to pacify the students failed as they threw stones directly at the staff and him while expanding the destruction; that the destruction occurred in darkness as rioting students deliberately vandalized lighting infrastructure making individual identification impossible; that on the morning of 19th May 2026 at 7:00 AM, a multi-agency meeting comprising the BOM, County Director of Education, SCDE, OCPD, TSC County Director, and NIS officers resolved to close the school indefinitely, schedule an immediate parents' meeting and convene the BOM to determine the way forward; that he formally notified the County Education Board of the closure via a letter dated 19th May 2026; that a team of Ministry of Education and Quality Assurance officers conducted a field evaluation producing a Standard Assessment Report dated 19th May 2026; that on 21st May 2026, the BOM held a meeting with teachers, PTA representatives, parents and officials in the main hall; he described the atmosphere as volatile stating that parents shouted down both the BOM Chairman and the PTA Representative, Mr. Benjamin Siguda; that Due to the hostility, the Sub-County Director, Mr. Bonface Otula was unable to deliver his speech; that the Ambira Boys Community-Based Organization predominantly comprising Grade 10 parents and led by Chairman Fredrick Bunde (1st Petitioner) and patron Eng. Mark Onyango hijacked proceedings; that this group insisted that the Grade 10 cohort was entirely innocent and should face no administrative measures; that he presented a chronological account of events during the meeting; that the Public Works officer tabled a preliminary report detailing widespread destruction affecting the Principal's office, Secretary's office, Bursar's office, Reception, Store, Deputy Principals' offices, Welfare office, Staffroom, Staff toilets, Strong room, Health room, Departmental offices, Shaving room, Teachers' quarters, TV dish, Canteen, Lighting rooms, Biometric equipment, Window panes, Unity Hall, Kitchen, Gate sentry boxes, Dormitories, Perimeter wall and Fencing; he denied making statements that the strike was carried out exclusively by Form 3 and 4 students, or offering commitments that Grade 10 pupils would be exempt from disciplinary measures; that he gave no personal commitments to exempt Grade 10 parents from repair contributions; that because the riot occurred in total darkness, individual participation could not be isolated; that a Grade 10 student (Adm. No. 13185) was recently captured on CCTV attempting to sabotage security cameras disproving claims of complete Grade 10 innocence; that exempting students was outside his personal purview as student discipline falls under the BOM's statutory duty to report to the County Education Board under Section 59(f) of the Basic Education Act; that the BOM's statutory mandate to protect property and appoint loss assessors to evaluate damage and restore facilities; that the Director of Public Works submitted two reports dated 28th May 2026: one estimating building repairs at Kshs. 21,061,661.80 and a consolidated assessment covering all works totaling Kshs. 50,003,110.80; that following these reports, a special joint BOM and multi-agency meeting was held on 29th May 2026.; that It was unanimously resolved that since individual responsibility could not be apportioned, all students would bear repair costs equally set at Kshs. 33,000/= per student; that the Kshs. 33,000/= levy was lawfully arrived at following consultations pursuant to Regulations 33(c), (d), 35 and 36(1)(b) of the Basic Education Regulations 2015; that wanton property destruction constitutes mass indiscipline, empowering authorities to prescribe readmission conditions under Regulation 36(1)(b);that Article 47 of the Constitution could not be invoked, as parents were engaged through consultative meetings and PTA representatives; the levy was purely for restoring the learning environment; that the demand was not a fee increment or illegal levy but recovery compensation for damage caused to public infrastructure; that he denied constitutional violations, noting the school held back students lawfully under Regulation 35(1) for less than two weeks before organizing readmission; that reopening dates were set in compliance with Article 53(1)(b) and Regulation 35(1): Grade 10 on 31st May 2026, Form 4 on 3rd June 2026, Form 3 on 5th June 2026 and all students by 8th June 2026; that he denied claims that students were barred from entry without full upfront payment noting no proof of exclusion was attached to the Petitions; that many students had been readmitted after paying full or partial amounts and signing damage commitment forms for remaining balances; that learning had resumed despite ongoing institutional hardships; that non-reporting by any student was down to personal parental choice as the school remained open to case-by-case engagements; that the Petitioners failed to show proof of any specific student being denied access to education; that without naming affected students, the Petitions remained speculative and premature; that it was fair and just for students to bear repair costs resulting from their indiscipline; that the school operates on tight Ministry capitation budgets and cannot absorb damage costs; that critical safety assets including fire extinguishers, gas systems, CCTV, and dormitories were destroyed and needed urgent restoration; that without systematic repairs funded through the damage levy, the institution faced risks of permanent closure; that public schools undergo mandatory annual government safety inspections; that courts should be slow to interfere with administrative decisions made in good faith for institutional management; that the Court find the Petitions unmerited and dismiss them with costs.
9. The petition was canvassed by way of written submissions.
10. The Petitioners pointed out that the 2nd Respondent's (Boaz Adit)’s replying affidavit exhibited an appointment letter dated 21st January 2025 as proof that the Board of Management was properly constituted. They submitted that on its face, the letter appointed thirteen named persons under Section 56(1)(a) to (f) of the Basic Education Act, 2013 but failed to designate a chairperson. Consequently, the Petitioners argued that on the Respondents' own documents, the person who had signed off on the reopening arrangements and the levy as Chairperson of the Board could not be shown to hold that office. The Petitioners humbly submitted that the appointment letter was not saved merely because it was issued in the name of a body that possessed such authority in principle. They submitted that this defect was not a mere technicality. In support of this contention, they cited Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 3 others v. Anne Waiguru, Cabinet Secretary, Devolution and Planning & 6 others [2021] eKLR , where the Court held that a decision-making authority acting outside its jurisdiction or contrary to statutory provisions commits an act of ultra vires rendering the decision illegal.
11. They further cited JEA v. Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Education, Science & Technology & 3 others [2020] eKLR , where administrative action taken in the education sector without statutorily required consultation was declared ultra vires and void. Applying that reasoning, the Petitioners submitted that a levy signed off by a person whose appointment as Chairperson was unestablished and imposed by a body acting through him could not bind the students and parents of Ambira High School.
12. The Petitioners anticipated that the Respondents would rely on Regulation 36(1)(b) of the Basic Education Regulations 2015 as authority to determine readmission conditions following mass indiscipline. However, the Petitioners highlighted that the Regulation expressly vests that power in the County Education Board and not in the Board of Management, the Principal acting alone or an ad hoc "multi-agency team". The Petitioners observed that no resolution of the County Education Board (as distinct from the meetings described in paragraphs 22 and 39 of the replying affidavit dated 7th July 2026) had been placed before the Court. They therefore submitted that the levy was not made by the body designated by law.
13. The Petitioners submitted that the 2nd Respondent's own account foreclosed any claim that the levy was based on individual culpability. They noted that paragraph 34 of the Respondents' replying affidavit admitted that because the destruction occurred at night, establishing which students participated was difficult. They further noted that paragraph 40 of the same affidavit stated that all students were made to bear the cost equally precisely because there was no way of apportioning damage among those responsible. The Petitioners submitted that what the Respondents offered as a justification was on examination, an admission that no individualized assessment was ever conducted.
14. The Petitioners highlighted an internal inconsistency in the Respondents' evidence which asserted on one hand that the destruction of the lighting system made student identification impossible while asserting on the other hand that the school's CCTV system captured and identified one named student by admission number. They argued that both assertions could not be true and that in any event, the conduct of one student could not justify visiting a uniform financial penalty on over 1,500 students. In support, the Petitioners cited the decision of Justice Odunga in Republic v. Board of Management, Mbaikini Boys High School & another Ex-Parties AMK & 4 others [2022] KEHC 2281 (KLR) , which espoused that disciplinary measures cannot be arbitrary, wholesale or applied without due process and that administrators must prove individual culpability.
15. The Petitioners humbly submitted that a levy imposed on such a basis offended Article 27 of the Constitution (which guards against arbitrary differential treatment and treating a heterogeneous group as a single culpable unit) and Article 50 of the Constitution (which guarantees due process). They cited The Management Committee of Makondo Primary School and Another v. Uganda National Examination Board, HC Civil Misc Application No. 18 of 2010 , which established that no one should be condemned unheard ( audi alteram partem ), that natural justice is superior to human-made laws, and that any law or act contravening it is null and void.
16. They further cited the High Court decision of Nyamu J. (as he then was) in Kenya Bus Services Ltd & 2 Others v. Attorney General [2005] 1 KLR 787 , which asserted that while restrictions on rights must be challenged on grounds of reasonableness, proportionality and societal values. fundamental rights are inalienable and streams of constitutional justice must flow pure for all. The Petitioners concluded on this issue that a levy applied without a mechanism to separate the innocent from the guilty was not a valid disciplinary measure but a blunt exaction falling hardest on families least able to pay.
17. The Petitioners submitted that Article 47(1) of the Constitution entitles every person to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. Citing Republic v. National Police Service Commission Ex-Parte Daniel Chacha [2016] eKLR (adopting Judicial Service Commission v. Mbalu Mutava & another [2015] eKLR ) they emphasized that Article 47 marks a transformative shift to a constitutional entitlement to fairness grounded in Article 10 values.
18. The Petitioners argued that the parents' meeting of 21st May 2026 failed this standard. Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Respondents' Replying Affidavit described a meeting where the Board Chairperson, PTA representative and Sub-County Director were unable to finish speaking because parents shut them down. The Petitioners submitted that a meeting where the Respondents' own witnesses could not complete their remarks could not be relied upon as a forum of genuine consultation.
19. Citing the Supreme Court decision in British American Tobacco (BAT) Kenya Ltd v. Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Health & others [2019] eKLR , the Petitioners outlined the essential elements of meaningful public participation including clarity of subject matter, clear engagement structures, balanced influence, transparency and public sensitization.
20. They noted that the Respondents attempted to justify the levies by relying on a Ministry of Public Works Bill of Quantities estimating repair costs at approximately Kshs. 58 million. The Petitioners submitted that this document was grossly disproportionate to the damage, unexplained and never disclosed to parents. Parents were given no explanation regarding the computation or legal authority for the demands.
21. Furthermore, the Petitioners pointed out that the actual sum of Kshs. 33,000/= was not fixed at the parents' meeting, but eight days later on 29th May 2026 during a "special Board of Management and multi-agency meeting". No parents, guardians or PTA representatives attended or were consulted at that subsequent meeting. Citing Lucy Wanjiku Gitumbe & another v. Dedan Kimathi University of Technology [2016] eKLR , the Petitioners submitted that the failure to afford students or parents an opportunity to confront allegations before imposing adverse measures was fatal to the administrative process.
22. The Petitioners submitted that Articles 43(1)(f) and 53(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantee the right to education and the right of every child to free and compulsory basic education. Citing JWM (alias P) v. Board of Management [particulars withheld] High School & 2 others [2019] eKLR , they argued that access to a public school cannot be made conditional on compliance with an unlawful requirement.
23. The Petitioners contended that labeling the levy as "compensation" rather than a "fee" in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the replying affidavit did not alter the constitutional defect: monetary demands were being attached to a child's return to the classroom.
24. They argued that the Respondents' claim that no student was refused entry was inconsistent with paragraph 49 of their own replying affidavit which admitted students were readmitted only after paying at least half the levy and signing a commitment to pay the balance. The Petitioners submitted that the option to pay half was an uncommunicated litigation afterthought as the only circular issued unequivocally demanded the full Kshs. 33,000/=. They asserted that forcing families to pay part of an unlawful levy and sign an undertaking to secure class access amounted to making them purchase a constitutional right.
25. The Petitioners submitted that they had discharged their burden of proof on a balance of probabilities demonstrating that the impugned decision was unconstitutional, unlawful, irrational and procedurally unfair.
26. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v. Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 Others [2012] eKLR , the Petitioners reiterated that public bodies must act strictly within constitutional and statutory boundaries, failing which their actions are a nullity. They submitted that the alleged Kshs. 50 million damage assessment could not sanitize an action that lacked transparency, methodology and parental consultation.
27. Relying on Judicial Service Commission v. Mbalu Mutava & Another [2015] eKLR and Suchan Investment Limited v. Ministry of National Heritage & Culture & 3 Others [2016] eKLR , the Petitioners submitted that judicial intervention was mandatory where administrative actions were illegal, irrational or procedurally improper. Emphasizing the primacy of the right to education under Articles 43(1)(f) and 53(1)(b) and citing J.K. (Suing through the mother and Next Friend C.K.) v. Board of Directors, R School & Another [2014] eKLR , the Petitioners submitted that the best interests of the child must remain paramount over administrative convenience or financial considerations. They added that the Respondents failed to show that the Board of Management had a valid statutory mandate.
28. The Petitioners noted that on 19th June 2026, the Court granted conservatory orders preserving the students' rights. They submitted that no changed circumstances existed to alter that position and citing Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v. Kenya Airports Authority & 2 Others; Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (Amicus Curiae) [2021] eKLR , argued that the Court should exercise its broad remedial powers under Article 23 to turn interim protections into permanent relief.
29. The Petitioners respectfully prayed that the Honourable Court grant the declarations, order of certiorari and mandamus and other the reliefs set out in Paragraph VI of the Petition.
30. The Respondents submitted on the legal principle that "he who alleges must prove". They noted that while the Petitioners alleged that the tenure of the 1st Respondent had expired, that no valid Board of Management existed at Ambira High School and that decisions made by the 1st Respondent were ultra vires , null and void, the Petitioners brought no evidence in support of these grave allegations. The Respondents asserted that the allegations must therefore remain unproven.
31. The Respondents referred to Sections 55, 56 and 59 of the Basic Education Act 2013 which establish the Board of Management of every public school, its composition and its statutory functions. They submitted that the 1st Respondent was properly constituted as evidenced by the appointment letter dated 21st February 2025 attached to the 2nd Respondent's Replying Affidavit issued by the Ministry of Education through the Sub-County Director of Education, Ugunja. Consequently, the Resp
[...truncated]