1. The Petitioners herein had earlier filed two separate petitions namely Petition Number E006 of 2026 at Siaya High Court and another one namely Petition Number E355 of 2026 at Milimani High Court Nairobi. The Nairobi Petition was later given the number E008 of 2026 upon transfer from Nairobi Milimani High Court to Siaya High Court. The two Petitions were thus consolidated on 18/6/2026 and that proceedings were agreed to proceed in Petition E006 of 2026.
2. Filed contemporaneously with the Petitions were notices of motion dated 2/6/2026 and 4/6/2026 both of which sought for interim reliefs pending determination of the applications and Petitions.
3. The application dated 2/6/2026 sought for the following reliefs:
i) Pending the hearing and final determination of this Petition, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a conservatory order/injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents, their agents, servants, employees, or any person acting on their behalf or instructions, from demanding, collecting, enforcing or in any manner compelling students or parents/guardians of Ambira High School to pay the sum of Kenya Shillings Thirty-Three Thousand (Kshs. 33,000/=) or any other amount purportedly levied as a 'damage penalty' arising from the student unrest of May 2026.
ii)Pending the hearing and final determination of this Petition, this Honourable Court do issue an order restraining the Respondents from withholding or denying readmission to any student on account of failure to pay the said levy of Kshs. 33,000/=.
iv)Costs of this application be provided for.
v)Any other or further relief that this Honourable Court may deem just and fit to grant.
3. The application is premised on the grounds set out in the body of the Petition herein and the supporting affidavit of Michael Oluoch, the 2 nd Petitioner herein, which raised the following grounds:
a) The matter is urgent as students are required to report to school as from 2nd June 2026 and the Respondents have made the payment of Kshs. 33,000/ as a precondition for readmission, causing irreparable harm and prejudice to the students and their families.
b) The imposition of the said levy is arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional on its face, as it was imposed without any legal authority, parent participation, or due process.
c) The 4th Respondent's mandate as a Board of Management has expired and no new, duly constituted board exists to lawfully exercise the power to impose such a levy, rendering any such decision null and void.
d) The Petitioners and the students/families they represent stand to suffer irreversible prejudice including denial of the constitutional right to education if the injunction is not granted pending the hearing of this Petition.
e) The balance of convenience tilts overwhelmingly in favour of granting the conservatory orders, as the Respondents stand to suffer no prejudice from the maintenance of the status quo pending the hearing. He further went ahead to aver inter alia; that he is a parent of a student enrolled at Ambira High School, hence competent and duly authorized to swear this Affidavit on his own behalf and on behalf of the other Petitioners; that in May 2026, there occurred incidents of student unrest at Ambira High School which allegedly resulted in destruction of school property; that following the said unrest, the Respondents purported to impose a levy of Kenya Shillings Thirty-Three Thousand (Kshs. 33,000/=) upon each student as a damage penalty; that the said levy was imposed arbitrarily and without any consultation, participation or engagement with parents, guardians or students and without disclosure of the basis upon which the amount was assessed; that the Respondents have directed that student will not be readmitted to school unless the said amount is paid in full; that students are required to report back to school from 2nd June 2026, and unless this Honourable Court intervenes, many students stand to be denied access to education solely on account of inability or refusal to pay the impugned levy; that the said levy has caused widespread anxiety and hardship among parents and guardians, many of whom are unable to raise the amount demanded within the limited period provided; that that the right to education guaranteed under the Constitution cannot lawfully be curtailed through arbitrary financial penalties imposed without due process and lawful authority; that the tenure of the Board of Management of Ambira High School has expired and that any decision made in the absence of a duly constituted board is unlawful, null and void; that unless the conservatory orders sought are granted, students will suffer immediate and irreparable prejudice through exclusion from school, interruption of learning, emotional distress and violation of their constitutional rights; that the Respondents shall suffer no prejudice if the status quo is preserved pending the hearing and determination of this Petition, whereas the students and parents stand to suffer substantial and irreversible harm if the impugned decision is implemented; that the application has been brought in utmost good faith and in the interest of safeguarding the constitutional rights and welfare of the affected students.
4. The second application dated is dated 4/6/2026 which seeks the following reliefs:
i) That the application herein be certified urgent, heard ex-parte and service of the same be dispensed with in the first instance.
Ii) That pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-partes, this Honorable court be pleased to issue Conservatory Orders restraining the Respondents either by themselves or through their servants and/or agents or any other claiming under them from compelling the Petitioners to pay Kenya Shillings Thirty Three Thousand (Kshs.33,000/=) as indicated in the Respondents’ letter to the Petitioners dated 30th May 2026 in contravention of the Constitution of Kenya and this Honorable court be pleased to issue Conservatory Orders compelling the Respondents to unconditionally admit the Petitioners’ children to school with immediate effect.
iii)That pending the hearing and determination of this Petition, this Honourable court be pleased to issue Conservatory Orders restraining the Respondents either by themselves or through their servants or agents or employees and or any other claiming under them from intimidating, blackmailing, threatening or victimizing the Petitioners and the Petitioner’s sons and to guarantee the Petitioner’s sons their safety within the school as required by the Ministry of Education in the Ministry’s guideline on School’s safety rules and regulations and to safeguard the Petitioner’s Constitutional rights and freedoms.
iv) That pending hearing and determination of this Petition, this 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, the safety of students inside the school, monitoring and control of movement in and outside the school, evaluation reports among other safety requirements and if the same has not been complied with as directed by the Ministry of Education, then this Honourable Court to order the 3rd Respondent to conduct an audit of the same and table the report in court and an order be issued to the 1st and 2nd Respondents of mandatory compliance of the Schools` Safety Rules and Regulations with immediate effect.
v) That costs of this application be borne by the Respondents.
5. The said application is based on the grounds set out thereunder and by the affidavit of Sylvester Odhiambo which are inter alia; that the Petitioners are parents of Grade 10 Students at Ambira High School (hereinafter called "the School") which in this matter is represented by the Respondents; that on or about 18th/19th May 2026 there was a student strike at the school which occasioned severe damage to school and student property resulting to the school being closed indefinitely; that as per information provided to the Petitioners by the 1st Respondent in a parents meeting on 21st May 2026, the student strike was undertaken by the Form 4 students who had grievances with the school administration including but not limited to suspension of the school captain who was accused of practicing homosexuality/sodomy and a demand to be given a leakage to the Kenya National Examination Council (KCSE) examination, which demands the school was unable to satisfy; that during the meeting aforesaid, the 1st Respondent assured the Petitioners that their children/students that is Grade 10 pupils will not be affected by any punitive measures issued by the school as a result of the damage to property since the only players in the strike were Form 4 students; that the 1st Respondent further gave a personal commitment that parents of Grade 10 students, the Petitioners herein will not bear any costs towards the repair of the damaged school property for the reasons aforesaid; that however, in a shocking turn of events and in blatant reversal of the 1st Respondent’s earlier commitment in the meeting held on 21st May 2026, the 1st and 2nd Respondents through a letter dated 30th May 2026 informed the Petitioners that Grade 10 students to report on 2nd June 2026 while all students were required to report on the specified dated without fail and that assessment report from Public works indicated that the total sum of the damages caused by the strike amounted to Kshs.50,000,000/= and that the penalty on the damages amounted to Kshs.33,000/= per student, inclusive of Grade 10 students and that all students were to be readmitted to the school; that due to the aforesaid actions by the Respondents, the Petitioners’ children have been denied entry to school in order to access education in contravention of Articles 43(f) and 53(1)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya; that the Petitioners’ children’s right to Fair Administrative Action has been grossly violated by the Respondents’ demand that each students pays a global sum of Kshs.33,000/= without granting the students a right to be heard as is guaranteed under Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya; that from the foregoing and in view of the evidence provided by the Petitioners herein, it is apparent that the Respondents’ actions amount to a gross violation of the Petitioners’ children’s constitutional rights which actions must be sanctioned by this Honorable court; that unless this Honorable court grants the Conservatory Orders sought in this application the Petitioners’ children are bound to suffer irreparable loss, as the Respondents have continued to deny them their constitutional right to education without any justification which constitutes a flagrant violation of the Petitioners’ children’s rights and fundamental freedoms as envisioned by the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and other Laws of Kenya; that it is only fair and just that this Honorable court restrains the Respondents from violating the Petitioners’ children’s right to education by denying them entry to school to access education without payment of the impugned Kshs.33,000/=; that no Prejudice will be suffered by the Defendants/Respondents if the orders sought are granted.
6. The Respondents filed replying affidavits in opposition to the application. The Principal of the affected school, Boaz Adit filed a replying affidavit in opposition to the application wherein he averred inter alia; that the application is incompetent, without merit frivolous and vexatious; that the Respondents vehemently opposes the issues raised in the Applicants' application as they are misconceived, misguiding and legally untenable based on the following grounds; that he is the Chief Principal of the Ambira High School having been appointed as such at the beginning of this year; that currently the number of students enrolled at the school stands at over 1,500 students; that in the morning of 18th May 2026, a grade 10 pupil came to his office and reported that there were form 4 students who were making sexual advances at him and that he had previously reported the matter to one of the teachers; that following that report, he summoned the said teacher and directed him to conduct further investigation on the issue of sodomization within the school; that after investigation and upon gathering enough evidence, one student was sent home and later in the afternoon, he held a meeting with the form 4 students; that in the meeting, several issues arose among them were the issues of Malpractice in National examinations, sodomy and the introduction of 8.00PM tea; that he assured the students that investigation would be done and stern action would be taken against any student found making sexual or forcing sexual advances on other fellow students; that he informed the form 4 students that the issue of cheating in National Examinations will not be tolerated under his watch and assured them of the commitment the teachers have in ensuring that every student's academic need is catered for and he encouraged them also to work hard; that he informed the students that the issue of 8.00PM tea would have financial implications on their parents and that the school would discuss the same with the parents first; that the meeting ended at around 6.00 PM and the students went to take supper; that at around 8.00 PM, he heard noises up school and rushed to the administration block where he found teachers trying to calm the students down to no avail; that the students wanted the head boy out of the school and so he went into hiding; that the disruption escalated, he tried calming them down but the students persisted and they started throwing stones at the teachers and him; that the police were called but they were unable to contain the situation as the students went on wanton destruction of property; that the wanton destruction of school property took place at night, lights were vandalized and switched off hence it was difficult to pinpoint the culprits; that in the morning of 19.05.2026, a multi-agency meeting consisting of the school's board of management, Ministry of Education County Director of education and SCDE. Security agencies/area OCPD, Teacher service commission/CD-TSC and National Intelligence service Agent (NIS) was held and the members resolved that:
a) The school be closed indefinitely with immediate effect.
b) Parents meeting be scheduled immediately.
c) School Board of management to hold a meeting to discuss way forward.
; that on 21.5.2026, the board of management convened a meeting with the teachers and the parents and other officials at the school's main hall; that in the meeting the atmosphere was extremely hostile and highly volatile as the parents shut down the Chairperson of the 2nd Respondent before he could finish addressing them; that the parents also shut down the Parent-Teachers Association (PTA) representative one Mr. Benjamin Siguda before he could finish his speech, despite his efforts to maintain order; that due to the harsh environment created by the parents, the Sub County Director, Mr. Bonface Otula was not able to give out his full speech as he had intended; that the Ambira boys' community-based organization (Consisting mostly of parents of Grade 10 pupils) took over the meeting led by their Chairman Mr. Fredrick Bunde and their patron known as Engineer Mark Onyango where they allowed me and other officials to address them; that he gave a chronological order of events of what transpired on the night of 18.05.2026 to 20.05.2026; that the various issues were discussed; that the Public works officer gave a report on the extent of damage which was still inconclusive at that time; that the report indicated that the following areas in school had been affected by the wanton destruction of property by the students:
- The principal's office
- The Secretary's office
- The Store
- The students' welfare office
- The staff toilet with the Administration block
- The strong room
- All departmental offices
- The shaving room
- The Teachers' Quarters
- The TV Dish
- The Bursars office
- The Reception
- Two Deputy principals' office
- The staffroom
- The health room
- The school canteen
- The lighting rooms
- The Biometric equipment
- Window panes in ultra-modern block and lower-class rooms
- Unity hall
- Kitchen and store
- Fence
- Gate sentry Boxes
- Dormitories
- Perimeter wall
; that at no time during the meeting did he personally or otherwise state that strike was undertaken by form 4 and form 3 students or even assured the parents of grade 10 pupils that they will not be affected by any punitive measures that would be issued by the school as a result of the mass indiscipline which culminated to wanton destruction of school property; that Paragraph 8 is false as he did not give any personal commitment to Grade 10 parents that they will be exempted from bearing costs towards the repair of damaged school property; that since the wanton destruction of school property took place at night, and none of students were willing to listen to their teachers including the Grade 10 pupils, it was difficult to ascertain the students who participated in the destruction of school property; that he verily believe to be true that it is not within his purview to personally exempt Grade 10 students as the mass indiscipline issue had been taken over by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and further it is the duty of the 2nd Respondent to determine cases of pupils' discipline and make reports to the County Education Board as provided for under Section 59 of the Basic Education Act Cap 211; that the Board of Management is mandated to maintain discipline, protect school property, and ensure the continued provision of education; that where school property is destroyed, the board of management is entitled to appoint a registered loss assessor to investigate the incident, assess the loss suffered, and take lawful measures aimed at restoring the damaged facilities and ensuring accountability; that on 29.5.2026 the Director of Public works submitted two reports both dated 28.05.2026 to the school's Board of Management. The report on the proposed estimate for damages caused by student unrest containing Building works only was estimated at KSHS. 21,061,661.80 while the report on the estimate for damages caused by students' unrest on all works consolidated amounted to KSHS. 50,003,110.80; that following the report by the public works, a special Board of management and multi-agency meeting was convened on 29.05.2026 in which it was unanimously agreed that there was no way of apportioning damages to those who participated most during the unrest; that the areas damaged included :
-Window panes in ultra-modern block and lower-class rooms
- Unity hall
- Kitchen and store
- Fence
- Gate sentry Boxes
- Dormitories
- Perimeter wall
;that at no time during the meeting did he personally or otherwise state that the strike was undertaken by form 4 and form 3 students or even assured the parents of grade 10 pupils that they will not be affected by any punitive measures that would be issued school as a result of the mass indiscipline which culminated to wanton destruction of school property. (Attached herewith are minutes of the meeting held on 21.05.2026); that Paragraph 8 is false. He did not give any personal commitment to Grade 10 parents they will be exempted from bearing costs towards the repair of damaged school property; that since the wanton destruction of school property took place at night, and none of students were willing to listen to their teachers including the Grade 10 pupils, it was difficult to ascertain the students who participated in the destruction of school property; that he believe to be true that it is not within his purview to personally exempt Grade 10 students as the mass indiscipline issue had been taken over by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and further it is the duty of the 2nd Respondent to determine cases of pupils' discipline and make reports to the County Education Board as provided for under Section 59 of the Basic Education Act Cap 211; that following the report by the public works, a special Board of management and multi-agency meeting was convened on 29.05.2026 in which it was unanimously agreed that because there was no way of apportioning damages to those who participated most during any document indicating violation of any constitutional right that the respondents will deny entry to school any student unless that said amount is paid in full; that the Respondents have admitted several students back to school some of whom have paid the said amount in full while several other students have also been admitted back to school after paying at least half of the said amount and upon signing a damage commitment form to clear the balance endue cause; that the students have reported back to school and teaching is continuing despite the hardship that the respondents are facing as a result of the mass indiscipline; that the students will be breaking for Mid-term Holiday from 19.06.2026 to 30.06.2026; that it is therefore not true that the school has been closed indefinitely as alleged by the Applicants; that, if any student has not reported back to school, it is the parent's own personal choice for the school remains open to engage parents on case-to-case basis on the issue of payment of Kshs. 33,000/= as he stated on Paragraph 37 above; that he believes to be true that the Applicants have presented mere anxiety and hardship which do not meet the threshold expected to be demonstrated in an application for conservatory orders; that it is purely the students lack of discipline that escalated to wanton destruction of school properties that gave rise to the public works report assessing the loss to the tune of Kshs. 50,003,110.80/=, and it is only fair and just that the students bear the costs of the repair work; that the school has been in existence for a long time and the safety of the students is of paramount importance; that the safety was intact before the unrest of 18.05.2026 which led to the destruction of fire extinguishers, water reticulation and pumping system, gas system, dormitories, cctv cameras among others and it is therefore impossible to ascertain compliance with orders sought in the application as the renovation works is ongoing and may not be completed soon if the orders sought are granted by this Honorable court; that, the Applicants are aiming at running the risk of permanent closure of the school if repairs works are not gradually and systematically done and these repairs can only be achieved if the damage amount of Kshs. 33,000/= is paid either in full or in instalment upon signing a commitment form; that further to the above, and the 2nd Respondent being a public entity, the government usually conduct routine inspection of schools on safety standards as it is a ministerial function carried out annually; that he believe to be true that the there are numerous ways to solve issues, and mass indiscipline leading to wanton destruction of school property is not one of them and the Honourable court should be slow to interfere with the administrative and managerial decisions of the 2nd Respondent where such decisions are made in good faith and for the proper functioning of the school; that the Respondents will suffer prejudice should the court grant the orders sought as the respondent lack funds to carry out repair works caused by learners during the unrest; that he believe to be true that the Applicants have failed to demonstrate that they stand to suffer prejudice incapable of remedy should the court decline to grant the orders sought and further, the students are already back in school and learning is ongoing; that he believe to be true that the Supreme Court in Gatirau Peter Munya V Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others EKLR held that conservatory orders should be granted only after considering the inherent merits of the case, public interest, constitutional values and proportionality; that he believe to be true that the court further reiterated in the case of Samuel Njoroge Waweru Vs Ministry Of Education And 3 Others (PET NO.91 OF 2017) KLR and the case of Board Of Management Of Uhuru Secondary School Vs City County Director Of Education And 2 Others KLR the grounds upon which Conservatory orders may be granted; that he believe to be true that the public interest weighs heavily against the grant of the conservatory orders sought; that the destruction of school property during the unrest occasioned substantial loss estimated at approximately Kshs. 50,003,110.80, and the Respondents require resources to restore the school back to its glory for the benefit of all the 1,500 learners; that in the interest of justice that the Honourable court find the Applicants' application unmerited and dismiss the same with costs to the Respondents.
7. Michael Oluoch, filed a further affidavit in response to the replying affidavit of Boaz Adit, the Principal of the affected school wherein he averred inter alia; that; that while the 2nd Respondent describes the applications as "incompetent, frivolous and vexatious," the truth is that he is trying to dress up an illegal collective punishment as a lawful school levy as calling a wrong name does not make it right; that the 2nd Respondent admits in paragraphs 16 and 20 of his affidavit that the destruction happened at night, lights were vandalized, and it was "difficult to pinpoint the culprits." He then admits that the Board nevertheless decided that "all students were proposed to bear the cost equally" simply because there was no way to know who did what. This is the very definition of collective punishment, which our Constitution does not permit; that the 2nd Respondent claims the Kshs. 33,000/= was not arbitrary and cites Regulations 33(c), (d), 35, and 36 of the Basic Education Regulations, 2015 which he has read with his advocates and that there is nowhere that they authorize a school to demand a blanket penalty from innocent students for damage they may not have caused and that the regulations deal with general discipline and lawful recovery of actual losses from identified wrongdoers after a fair process which was not followed; that the 2nd Respondent states in paragraph 26 that "it is not true... that students will not be readmitted if the said amount is not paid in full" yet the circular of 30th May 2026, which he does not deny issuing, states in black and white that the Kshs. 33,000/= is "a precondition for readmission; that the reality on the ground contradicts the 2nd Respondent's denial since he is aware of a specific student, Samuel Nalo, admission number 13196, currently in Grade 10, who presented himself for readmission but was turned away solely because his parents could not pay the Kshs. 33,000/= and he remains at home and hence this is not a theoretical fear—it is actual exclusion; that the verbal instructions given to students by their class teachers make the position even clearer as class teachers have directly advised students not to report to school unless they have cleared the Kshs. 33,000/= levy in full and which confirms that the threat of exclusion is not just on paper it is being actively enforced on the ground; that the 2nd Respondent claims in paragraph 27 that some students who paid partially were readmitted but this is a red herring and raises the question whether a few managed to negotiate and whether it is lawful to keep any child out of school for failing to pay a penalty that has no legal basis; that regarding the Board of Management's mandate, the 2nd Respondent baldly asserts in paragraph 28 that the Board is "properly constituted" under Section 55 and 56 of the Basic Education Act but provides no evidence of when the current Board was appointed or when its term expires; that the 2nd Respondent argues that the petitioners have shown only "anxiety and hardship" and not sufficient prejudice yet there is greater prejudice in sending a child home permanently one month before KCSE and that some parents earns Kshs. 10,000 a month who cannot find Kshs. 33,000 in three days; that the 2nd Respondent claims the Respondents will suffer prejudice because they lack funds to repair the school but two wrongs do not make a right as the law does not allow an illegal levy simply because the school is desperate yet the proper path was to identify the actual culprits, take disciplinary action against them, and pursue their parents for proven losses instead of punishing 1,500 students for the acts of a few which is not only illegal but is a lazy administration; that furthermore, the Respondents are not without options. The school receives annual capitation from the national government under the free day secondary education programme, which is meant to cover operational costs and basic repairs. In addition, the school has a development fund that can be lawfully applied toward restoring damaged infrastructure. If the Respondents genuinely need money for repairs, those are the proper channels not imposing an illegal levy on innocent students. And even if the court ultimately finds against us, the Respondents can still recover the Kshs. 33,000 from the Petitioners or the affected parents at that stage. No irreparable harm will befall the school if the conservatory orders are granted. The only irreparable harm in this equation is the one alrea
[...truncated]
2. Filed contemporaneously with the Petitions were notices of motion dated 2/6/2026 and 4/6/2026 both of which sought for interim reliefs pending determination of the applications and Petitions.
3. The application dated 2/6/2026 sought for the following reliefs:
i) Pending the hearing and final determination of this Petition, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a conservatory order/injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents, their agents, servants, employees, or any person acting on their behalf or instructions, from demanding, collecting, enforcing or in any manner compelling students or parents/guardians of Ambira High School to pay the sum of Kenya Shillings Thirty-Three Thousand (Kshs. 33,000/=) or any other amount purportedly levied as a 'damage penalty' arising from the student unrest of May 2026.
ii)Pending the hearing and final determination of this Petition, this Honourable Court do issue an order restraining the Respondents from withholding or denying readmission to any student on account of failure to pay the said levy of Kshs. 33,000/=.
iv)Costs of this application be provided for.
v)Any other or further relief that this Honourable Court may deem just and fit to grant.
3. The application is premised on the grounds set out in the body of the Petition herein and the supporting affidavit of Michael Oluoch, the 2 nd Petitioner herein, which raised the following grounds:
a) The matter is urgent as students are required to report to school as from 2nd June 2026 and the Respondents have made the payment of Kshs. 33,000/ as a precondition for readmission, causing irreparable harm and prejudice to the students and their families.
b) The imposition of the said levy is arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional on its face, as it was imposed without any legal authority, parent participation, or due process.
c) The 4th Respondent's mandate as a Board of Management has expired and no new, duly constituted board exists to lawfully exercise the power to impose such a levy, rendering any such decision null and void.
d) The Petitioners and the students/families they represent stand to suffer irreversible prejudice including denial of the constitutional right to education if the injunction is not granted pending the hearing of this Petition.
e) The balance of convenience tilts overwhelmingly in favour of granting the conservatory orders, as the Respondents stand to suffer no prejudice from the maintenance of the status quo pending the hearing. He further went ahead to aver inter alia; that he is a parent of a student enrolled at Ambira High School, hence competent and duly authorized to swear this Affidavit on his own behalf and on behalf of the other Petitioners; that in May 2026, there occurred incidents of student unrest at Ambira High School which allegedly resulted in destruction of school property; that following the said unrest, the Respondents purported to impose a levy of Kenya Shillings Thirty-Three Thousand (Kshs. 33,000/=) upon each student as a damage penalty; that the said levy was imposed arbitrarily and without any consultation, participation or engagement with parents, guardians or students and without disclosure of the basis upon which the amount was assessed; that the Respondents have directed that student will not be readmitted to school unless the said amount is paid in full; that students are required to report back to school from 2nd June 2026, and unless this Honourable Court intervenes, many students stand to be denied access to education solely on account of inability or refusal to pay the impugned levy; that the said levy has caused widespread anxiety and hardship among parents and guardians, many of whom are unable to raise the amount demanded within the limited period provided; that that the right to education guaranteed under the Constitution cannot lawfully be curtailed through arbitrary financial penalties imposed without due process and lawful authority; that the tenure of the Board of Management of Ambira High School has expired and that any decision made in the absence of a duly constituted board is unlawful, null and void; that unless the conservatory orders sought are granted, students will suffer immediate and irreparable prejudice through exclusion from school, interruption of learning, emotional distress and violation of their constitutional rights; that the Respondents shall suffer no prejudice if the status quo is preserved pending the hearing and determination of this Petition, whereas the students and parents stand to suffer substantial and irreversible harm if the impugned decision is implemented; that the application has been brought in utmost good faith and in the interest of safeguarding the constitutional rights and welfare of the affected students.
4. The second application dated is dated 4/6/2026 which seeks the following reliefs:
i) That the application herein be certified urgent, heard ex-parte and service of the same be dispensed with in the first instance.
Ii) That pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-partes, this Honorable court be pleased to issue Conservatory Orders restraining the Respondents either by themselves or through their servants and/or agents or any other claiming under them from compelling the Petitioners to pay Kenya Shillings Thirty Three Thousand (Kshs.33,000/=) as indicated in the Respondents’ letter to the Petitioners dated 30th May 2026 in contravention of the Constitution of Kenya and this Honorable court be pleased to issue Conservatory Orders compelling the Respondents to unconditionally admit the Petitioners’ children to school with immediate effect.
iii)That pending the hearing and determination of this Petition, this Honourable court be pleased to issue Conservatory Orders restraining the Respondents either by themselves or through their servants or agents or employees and or any other claiming under them from intimidating, blackmailing, threatening or victimizing the Petitioners and the Petitioner’s sons and to guarantee the Petitioner’s sons their safety within the school as required by the Ministry of Education in the Ministry’s guideline on School’s safety rules and regulations and to safeguard the Petitioner’s Constitutional rights and freedoms.
iv) That pending hearing and determination of this Petition, this 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, the safety of students inside the school, monitoring and control of movement in and outside the school, evaluation reports among other safety requirements and if the same has not been complied with as directed by the Ministry of Education, then this Honourable Court to order the 3rd Respondent to conduct an audit of the same and table the report in court and an order be issued to the 1st and 2nd Respondents of mandatory compliance of the Schools` Safety Rules and Regulations with immediate effect.
v) That costs of this application be borne by the Respondents.
5. The said application is based on the grounds set out thereunder and by the affidavit of Sylvester Odhiambo which are inter alia; that the Petitioners are parents of Grade 10 Students at Ambira High School (hereinafter called "the School") which in this matter is represented by the Respondents; that on or about 18th/19th May 2026 there was a student strike at the school which occasioned severe damage to school and student property resulting to the school being closed indefinitely; that as per information provided to the Petitioners by the 1st Respondent in a parents meeting on 21st May 2026, the student strike was undertaken by the Form 4 students who had grievances with the school administration including but not limited to suspension of the school captain who was accused of practicing homosexuality/sodomy and a demand to be given a leakage to the Kenya National Examination Council (KCSE) examination, which demands the school was unable to satisfy; that during the meeting aforesaid, the 1st Respondent assured the Petitioners that their children/students that is Grade 10 pupils will not be affected by any punitive measures issued by the school as a result of the damage to property since the only players in the strike were Form 4 students; that the 1st Respondent further gave a personal commitment that parents of Grade 10 students, the Petitioners herein will not bear any costs towards the repair of the damaged school property for the reasons aforesaid; that however, in a shocking turn of events and in blatant reversal of the 1st Respondent’s earlier commitment in the meeting held on 21st May 2026, the 1st and 2nd Respondents through a letter dated 30th May 2026 informed the Petitioners that Grade 10 students to report on 2nd June 2026 while all students were required to report on the specified dated without fail and that assessment report from Public works indicated that the total sum of the damages caused by the strike amounted to Kshs.50,000,000/= and that the penalty on the damages amounted to Kshs.33,000/= per student, inclusive of Grade 10 students and that all students were to be readmitted to the school; that due to the aforesaid actions by the Respondents, the Petitioners’ children have been denied entry to school in order to access education in contravention of Articles 43(f) and 53(1)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya; that the Petitioners’ children’s right to Fair Administrative Action has been grossly violated by the Respondents’ demand that each students pays a global sum of Kshs.33,000/= without granting the students a right to be heard as is guaranteed under Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya; that from the foregoing and in view of the evidence provided by the Petitioners herein, it is apparent that the Respondents’ actions amount to a gross violation of the Petitioners’ children’s constitutional rights which actions must be sanctioned by this Honorable court; that unless this Honorable court grants the Conservatory Orders sought in this application the Petitioners’ children are bound to suffer irreparable loss, as the Respondents have continued to deny them their constitutional right to education without any justification which constitutes a flagrant violation of the Petitioners’ children’s rights and fundamental freedoms as envisioned by the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and other Laws of Kenya; that it is only fair and just that this Honorable court restrains the Respondents from violating the Petitioners’ children’s right to education by denying them entry to school to access education without payment of the impugned Kshs.33,000/=; that no Prejudice will be suffered by the Defendants/Respondents if the orders sought are granted.
6. The Respondents filed replying affidavits in opposition to the application. The Principal of the affected school, Boaz Adit filed a replying affidavit in opposition to the application wherein he averred inter alia; that the application is incompetent, without merit frivolous and vexatious; that the Respondents vehemently opposes the issues raised in the Applicants' application as they are misconceived, misguiding and legally untenable based on the following grounds; that he is the Chief Principal of the Ambira High School having been appointed as such at the beginning of this year; that currently the number of students enrolled at the school stands at over 1,500 students; that in the morning of 18th May 2026, a grade 10 pupil came to his office and reported that there were form 4 students who were making sexual advances at him and that he had previously reported the matter to one of the teachers; that following that report, he summoned the said teacher and directed him to conduct further investigation on the issue of sodomization within the school; that after investigation and upon gathering enough evidence, one student was sent home and later in the afternoon, he held a meeting with the form 4 students; that in the meeting, several issues arose among them were the issues of Malpractice in National examinations, sodomy and the introduction of 8.00PM tea; that he assured the students that investigation would be done and stern action would be taken against any student found making sexual or forcing sexual advances on other fellow students; that he informed the form 4 students that the issue of cheating in National Examinations will not be tolerated under his watch and assured them of the commitment the teachers have in ensuring that every student's academic need is catered for and he encouraged them also to work hard; that he informed the students that the issue of 8.00PM tea would have financial implications on their parents and that the school would discuss the same with the parents first; that the meeting ended at around 6.00 PM and the students went to take supper; that at around 8.00 PM, he heard noises up school and rushed to the administration block where he found teachers trying to calm the students down to no avail; that the students wanted the head boy out of the school and so he went into hiding; that the disruption escalated, he tried calming them down but the students persisted and they started throwing stones at the teachers and him; that the police were called but they were unable to contain the situation as the students went on wanton destruction of property; that the wanton destruction of school property took place at night, lights were vandalized and switched off hence it was difficult to pinpoint the culprits; that in the morning of 19.05.2026, a multi-agency meeting consisting of the school's board of management, Ministry of Education County Director of education and SCDE. Security agencies/area OCPD, Teacher service commission/CD-TSC and National Intelligence service Agent (NIS) was held and the members resolved that:
a) The school be closed indefinitely with immediate effect.
b) Parents meeting be scheduled immediately.
c) School Board of management to hold a meeting to discuss way forward.
; that on 21.5.2026, the board of management convened a meeting with the teachers and the parents and other officials at the school's main hall; that in the meeting the atmosphere was extremely hostile and highly volatile as the parents shut down the Chairperson of the 2nd Respondent before he could finish addressing them; that the parents also shut down the Parent-Teachers Association (PTA) representative one Mr. Benjamin Siguda before he could finish his speech, despite his efforts to maintain order; that due to the harsh environment created by the parents, the Sub County Director, Mr. Bonface Otula was not able to give out his full speech as he had intended; that the Ambira boys' community-based organization (Consisting mostly of parents of Grade 10 pupils) took over the meeting led by their Chairman Mr. Fredrick Bunde and their patron known as Engineer Mark Onyango where they allowed me and other officials to address them; that he gave a chronological order of events of what transpired on the night of 18.05.2026 to 20.05.2026; that the various issues were discussed; that the Public works officer gave a report on the extent of damage which was still inconclusive at that time; that the report indicated that the following areas in school had been affected by the wanton destruction of property by the students:
- The principal's office
- The Secretary's office
- The Store
- The students' welfare office
- The staff toilet with the Administration block
- The strong room
- All departmental offices
- The shaving room
- The Teachers' Quarters
- The TV Dish
- The Bursars office
- The Reception
- Two Deputy principals' office
- The staffroom
- The health room
- The school canteen
- The lighting rooms
- The Biometric equipment
- Window panes in ultra-modern block and lower-class rooms
- Unity hall
- Kitchen and store
- Fence
- Gate sentry Boxes
- Dormitories
- Perimeter wall
; that at no time during the meeting did he personally or otherwise state that strike was undertaken by form 4 and form 3 students or even assured the parents of grade 10 pupils that they will not be affected by any punitive measures that would be issued by the school as a result of the mass indiscipline which culminated to wanton destruction of school property; that Paragraph 8 is false as he did not give any personal commitment to Grade 10 parents that they will be exempted from bearing costs towards the repair of damaged school property; that since the wanton destruction of school property took place at night, and none of students were willing to listen to their teachers including the Grade 10 pupils, it was difficult to ascertain the students who participated in the destruction of school property; that he verily believe to be true that it is not within his purview to personally exempt Grade 10 students as the mass indiscipline issue had been taken over by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and further it is the duty of the 2nd Respondent to determine cases of pupils' discipline and make reports to the County Education Board as provided for under Section 59 of the Basic Education Act Cap 211; that the Board of Management is mandated to maintain discipline, protect school property, and ensure the continued provision of education; that where school property is destroyed, the board of management is entitled to appoint a registered loss assessor to investigate the incident, assess the loss suffered, and take lawful measures aimed at restoring the damaged facilities and ensuring accountability; that on 29.5.2026 the Director of Public works submitted two reports both dated 28.05.2026 to the school's Board of Management. The report on the proposed estimate for damages caused by student unrest containing Building works only was estimated at KSHS. 21,061,661.80 while the report on the estimate for damages caused by students' unrest on all works consolidated amounted to KSHS. 50,003,110.80; that following the report by the public works, a special Board of management and multi-agency meeting was convened on 29.05.2026 in which it was unanimously agreed that there was no way of apportioning damages to those who participated most during the unrest; that the areas damaged included :
-Window panes in ultra-modern block and lower-class rooms
- Unity hall
- Kitchen and store
- Fence
- Gate sentry Boxes
- Dormitories
- Perimeter wall
;that at no time during the meeting did he personally or otherwise state that the strike was undertaken by form 4 and form 3 students or even assured the parents of grade 10 pupils that they will not be affected by any punitive measures that would be issued school as a result of the mass indiscipline which culminated to wanton destruction of school property. (Attached herewith are minutes of the meeting held on 21.05.2026); that Paragraph 8 is false. He did not give any personal commitment to Grade 10 parents they will be exempted from bearing costs towards the repair of damaged school property; that since the wanton destruction of school property took place at night, and none of students were willing to listen to their teachers including the Grade 10 pupils, it was difficult to ascertain the students who participated in the destruction of school property; that he believe to be true that it is not within his purview to personally exempt Grade 10 students as the mass indiscipline issue had been taken over by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents and further it is the duty of the 2nd Respondent to determine cases of pupils' discipline and make reports to the County Education Board as provided for under Section 59 of the Basic Education Act Cap 211; that following the report by the public works, a special Board of management and multi-agency meeting was convened on 29.05.2026 in which it was unanimously agreed that because there was no way of apportioning damages to those who participated most during any document indicating violation of any constitutional right that the respondents will deny entry to school any student unless that said amount is paid in full; that the Respondents have admitted several students back to school some of whom have paid the said amount in full while several other students have also been admitted back to school after paying at least half of the said amount and upon signing a damage commitment form to clear the balance endue cause; that the students have reported back to school and teaching is continuing despite the hardship that the respondents are facing as a result of the mass indiscipline; that the students will be breaking for Mid-term Holiday from 19.06.2026 to 30.06.2026; that it is therefore not true that the school has been closed indefinitely as alleged by the Applicants; that, if any student has not reported back to school, it is the parent's own personal choice for the school remains open to engage parents on case-to-case basis on the issue of payment of Kshs. 33,000/= as he stated on Paragraph 37 above; that he believes to be true that the Applicants have presented mere anxiety and hardship which do not meet the threshold expected to be demonstrated in an application for conservatory orders; that it is purely the students lack of discipline that escalated to wanton destruction of school properties that gave rise to the public works report assessing the loss to the tune of Kshs. 50,003,110.80/=, and it is only fair and just that the students bear the costs of the repair work; that the school has been in existence for a long time and the safety of the students is of paramount importance; that the safety was intact before the unrest of 18.05.2026 which led to the destruction of fire extinguishers, water reticulation and pumping system, gas system, dormitories, cctv cameras among others and it is therefore impossible to ascertain compliance with orders sought in the application as the renovation works is ongoing and may not be completed soon if the orders sought are granted by this Honorable court; that, the Applicants are aiming at running the risk of permanent closure of the school if repairs works are not gradually and systematically done and these repairs can only be achieved if the damage amount of Kshs. 33,000/= is paid either in full or in instalment upon signing a commitment form; that further to the above, and the 2nd Respondent being a public entity, the government usually conduct routine inspection of schools on safety standards as it is a ministerial function carried out annually; that he believe to be true that the there are numerous ways to solve issues, and mass indiscipline leading to wanton destruction of school property is not one of them and the Honourable court should be slow to interfere with the administrative and managerial decisions of the 2nd Respondent where such decisions are made in good faith and for the proper functioning of the school; that the Respondents will suffer prejudice should the court grant the orders sought as the respondent lack funds to carry out repair works caused by learners during the unrest; that he believe to be true that the Applicants have failed to demonstrate that they stand to suffer prejudice incapable of remedy should the court decline to grant the orders sought and further, the students are already back in school and learning is ongoing; that he believe to be true that the Supreme Court in Gatirau Peter Munya V Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others EKLR held that conservatory orders should be granted only after considering the inherent merits of the case, public interest, constitutional values and proportionality; that he believe to be true that the court further reiterated in the case of Samuel Njoroge Waweru Vs Ministry Of Education And 3 Others (PET NO.91 OF 2017) KLR and the case of Board Of Management Of Uhuru Secondary School Vs City County Director Of Education And 2 Others KLR the grounds upon which Conservatory orders may be granted; that he believe to be true that the public interest weighs heavily against the grant of the conservatory orders sought; that the destruction of school property during the unrest occasioned substantial loss estimated at approximately Kshs. 50,003,110.80, and the Respondents require resources to restore the school back to its glory for the benefit of all the 1,500 learners; that in the interest of justice that the Honourable court find the Applicants' application unmerited and dismiss the same with costs to the Respondents.
7. Michael Oluoch, filed a further affidavit in response to the replying affidavit of Boaz Adit, the Principal of the affected school wherein he averred inter alia; that; that while the 2nd Respondent describes the applications as "incompetent, frivolous and vexatious," the truth is that he is trying to dress up an illegal collective punishment as a lawful school levy as calling a wrong name does not make it right; that the 2nd Respondent admits in paragraphs 16 and 20 of his affidavit that the destruction happened at night, lights were vandalized, and it was "difficult to pinpoint the culprits." He then admits that the Board nevertheless decided that "all students were proposed to bear the cost equally" simply because there was no way to know who did what. This is the very definition of collective punishment, which our Constitution does not permit; that the 2nd Respondent claims the Kshs. 33,000/= was not arbitrary and cites Regulations 33(c), (d), 35, and 36 of the Basic Education Regulations, 2015 which he has read with his advocates and that there is nowhere that they authorize a school to demand a blanket penalty from innocent students for damage they may not have caused and that the regulations deal with general discipline and lawful recovery of actual losses from identified wrongdoers after a fair process which was not followed; that the 2nd Respondent states in paragraph 26 that "it is not true... that students will not be readmitted if the said amount is not paid in full" yet the circular of 30th May 2026, which he does not deny issuing, states in black and white that the Kshs. 33,000/= is "a precondition for readmission; that the reality on the ground contradicts the 2nd Respondent's denial since he is aware of a specific student, Samuel Nalo, admission number 13196, currently in Grade 10, who presented himself for readmission but was turned away solely because his parents could not pay the Kshs. 33,000/= and he remains at home and hence this is not a theoretical fear—it is actual exclusion; that the verbal instructions given to students by their class teachers make the position even clearer as class teachers have directly advised students not to report to school unless they have cleared the Kshs. 33,000/= levy in full and which confirms that the threat of exclusion is not just on paper it is being actively enforced on the ground; that the 2nd Respondent claims in paragraph 27 that some students who paid partially were readmitted but this is a red herring and raises the question whether a few managed to negotiate and whether it is lawful to keep any child out of school for failing to pay a penalty that has no legal basis; that regarding the Board of Management's mandate, the 2nd Respondent baldly asserts in paragraph 28 that the Board is "properly constituted" under Section 55 and 56 of the Basic Education Act but provides no evidence of when the current Board was appointed or when its term expires; that the 2nd Respondent argues that the petitioners have shown only "anxiety and hardship" and not sufficient prejudice yet there is greater prejudice in sending a child home permanently one month before KCSE and that some parents earns Kshs. 10,000 a month who cannot find Kshs. 33,000 in three days; that the 2nd Respondent claims the Respondents will suffer prejudice because they lack funds to repair the school but two wrongs do not make a right as the law does not allow an illegal levy simply because the school is desperate yet the proper path was to identify the actual culprits, take disciplinary action against them, and pursue their parents for proven losses instead of punishing 1,500 students for the acts of a few which is not only illegal but is a lazy administration; that furthermore, the Respondents are not without options. The school receives annual capitation from the national government under the free day secondary education programme, which is meant to cover operational costs and basic repairs. In addition, the school has a development fund that can be lawfully applied toward restoring damaged infrastructure. If the Respondents genuinely need money for repairs, those are the proper channels not imposing an illegal levy on innocent students. And even if the court ultimately finds against us, the Respondents can still recover the Kshs. 33,000 from the Petitioners or the affected parents at that stage. No irreparable harm will befall the school if the conservatory orders are granted. The only irreparable harm in this equation is the one alrea
[...truncated]