Moi High School Kabarak has defended its disciplinary decision against a Form Four student accused of bringing an electronic cigarette into the institution, telling the High Court that proper procedures were followed before action was taken.
In documents filed before the court, the school and its Board of Management, through lawyers from HS Law Advocates LLP, raised a preliminary objection seeking to have the case struck out on grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the dispute at this stage.
The respondents argue that the matter should have first been taken before the Education Appeals Tribunal as required under the Basic Education Act No. 14 of 2013.
According to the school, Section 85 of the Act allows persons aggrieved by decisions of education authorities to appeal to the tribunal, while Section 93 establishes the tribunal to determine disputes arising from the administration of basic education.
The school also cited Section 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, which requires parties to exhaust available internal dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the courts.
“The applicant has bypassed the statutory framework and improperly invoked the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court,” the respondents argue in their objection.
The school further contends that the petition improperly invites the court to determine the merits of a disciplinary decision rather than review the legality of the decision-making process, which is the proper scope of judicial review.
Additionally, the respondents argue that the case has been overtaken by events because the student was voluntarily withdrawn from the school before the disciplinary process was concluded.
In a replying affidavit, Deputy Principal in charge of Administration at Moi High School Kabarak, Richard Rono, told the court that the student was admitted to the institution on January 10, 2024 and was a Form Four student in Class C, Athi House.
Rono said the school received credible reports on February 12, 2026 that the student had brought an electronic cigarette, commonly referred to as a vape device, into the school.
He stated that the device is associated with smoking substances and that its possession violates the school’s rules on drugs and smoking.
Following the report, the school’s discipline department launched investigations which established that the student had brought the vape device into the dormitory.
“The seriousness of the allegation prompted the school administration to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the school disciplinary framework,” Rono stated.
The student was subsequently issued with a temporary suspension letter dated February 12, 2026 requiring him to leave the school pending investigations and return on February 24, 2026 with his parent for a disciplinary hearing.
According to the affidavit, the student later wrote an apology letter admitting that he had purchased the vape device near Capital Centre in Nairobi and brought it to school.
The disciplinary hearing was held on February 24, 2026 and was attended by members of the disciplinary committee, the student and his mother, who participated in the proceedings.
However, the dispute escalated to court after the student, through lawyer Danstan Omari, challenged the disciplinary action, arguing that the continued exclusion from school is unlawful and violates the student’s constitutional and statutory right to education.
Last week, the High Court ordered the immediate readmission of the student pending the hearing and determination of the case.
In interim orders issued on March 4, 2026, Justice John Chigiti directed the school to allow the student, identified in court documents as M.L.A, to return to class unconditionally.
“Respondents are hereby directed to forthwith readmit M.L.A into class unconditionally,” the judge ordered.
