Moi High School Kabarak, has defended its decision to suspend a form four student, who it accuses of being in possession of an electronic cigarette gadget (VAPE) in the school.
While opposing a suit filed against it, the school through its Board of Management, is urging the High Court to strike out the case arguing that “it should be handled by the Education Appeals Tribunal (EAT).”
The School states that the aggrieved student should revert to the High Court after the EAT has dealt with the matter.
However, the High Court has directed the school to re-admit the student.
A judge sitting at the Milimani High Court ordered Moi High School Kabarak to immediately re-admit the student pending the hearing and determination of a case challenging the school’s decision.
"Respondents are hereby directed to forthwith readmit M.L.A into class unconditionally," the trial judge ordered.
The case will be mentioned March 18,2026 for the court to be informed if the school has complied with the re-admission directive.
The court has directed the school administration to re-admit the learner unconditionally so that he can resume his studies. The aggrieved student is in form four.
A man smoking an electronic cigarette gadget (Vape). Moi High School Kabarak suspended students in possession of Vape.
The parents of the student, through lawyer Danstan Omari, say the student's exclusion from school is unlawful and violates the student’s constitutional and statutory right to education.
The parent pleads with the court to order the school to re-admit the student; otherwise, this would constitute a violation of the student's right to education.
In its objection to the case being handled by the High Court, the school prays that the reinstatement orders urged be declined and the entire case thrown out for lack of jurisdiction.
Moi High School Kabarak’s administration block.
Photo credit: File
In a preliminary objection, the school informs the court that it can only adjudicate over the EAT's decision but not the substantive suit filed by the parent of the aggrieved student.
The school argues that the matter ought to have first been taken before the EAT as provided under the Basic Education Act No. 14 of 2013.
According to the respondents, Section 85 of the Act allows any person 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 cites Section 9 of the Fair Administrative Action Act, which requires parties to exhaust internal dispute resolution mechanisms before moving to court.
“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 suit 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 filed in court, the Deputy Principal in charge of Administration at Moi High School Kabarak, Richard Rono, stated that the student was admitted to the institution on January 10 2024 and was in Form IV.
Moi High School-Kabarak in Nakuru County.
Photo credit: File | Suleiman Mbatiah | Nation Media Group
Rono states 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 said the device is associated with smoking substances and its possession violates school rules on drugs and smoking.
Following the report, the school’s disciplinary department launched preliminary 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 took it with him to school.
The disciplinary hearing took place on February 24, 2026 and was attended by members of the disciplinary committee, the student and his mother who participated in the proceedings.
The respondents now want the court to strike out the suit with costs, maintaining that the matter should first be handled through the education dispute resolution framework established by law.
