By Andrew Kariuki
The High Court on March 18, 2026, declined an application by Moi High School Kabarak seeking to bar media coverage of proceedings in a case involving the suspension of a Form Four student, as the matter continues before Justice John Chigiti.
During the proceedings, counsel for the school had urged the court to restrict media access to the case
“My Lord, I pray that whatever directions the court may give is that we have a media guard to the extent that this matter is only prosecuted before yourself.” He stated
However the court declined to grant the request, allowing proceedings to remain open.
“The oral application to guard the media is declined. Second, a gag order cannot be issued against unnamed media houses in the world. Such an order, if issued, will offend Article 50 of the Constitution.” Justice Chigiti directed.
The court while confirming compliance with its earlier orders directing the unconditional readmission of the student, identified as M.L.A., who had been sent home over disciplinary issues, Advocate Omari stated that the school had not yet readmitted the student when he was taken to the school.
“The father who is the applicant in this matter is the one who pays school fees.He’s the one who has the child.He wants his child back at the prestigious Kabarak High School. What counsel is either not being told by his clients is the instructions the principal has given. Any tactful approach to divert from the court order is a contempt of a court order.” Omari Stated
The court confirmed that the applicant had complied with directions to file and serve a supplementary affidavit within the timelines earlier set by the court.
Parties further addressed the Notice of Preliminary Objection raised by the school and its Board of Management, with arguments focusing on whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter or whether it ought to have been first referred to the Education Appeals Tribunal under the Basic Education Act.
Justice Chigiti indicated that the court will consider the submissions on both the preliminary objection and the substantive issues raised in the application before issuing directions.
The matter was then scheduled for mention on March 19, 2026, for further directions.
The case arises from the suspension of the student after he was allegedly found in possession of an electronic cigarette, commonly referred to as a vape, within the school premises.
Court documents indicate that the school initiated disciplinary proceedings after receiving reports that the student had brought the device into the dormitory, leading to his suspension on February 12, 2026 pending investigations.
A disciplinary hearing was subsequently held on February 24, 2026 in the presence of the student and his parent, after which the dispute escalated into court proceedings.
Through his lawyer, Danstan Omari, the student challenged the continued exclusion from school, arguing that it violated his constitutional right to education and due process.
The school has maintained that it acted within its disciplinary framework and continues to challenge the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the matter should have been handled through the statutory dispute resolution mechanisms provided under education law.
