Parents to pay Sh69m for Litein Boys riot damages, court rules

Parents of Litein Boys High School will have to pay Sh49,000 each to cover damages caused by students during last year's riots.Justice Joseph Sergon sitting in Kericho ruled that the levy was neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional, dealing a blow to the petitioners who had challenged it.The petitioners, Sheria Mtaani and Shadrack Wambui, had challenged the fee as "exorbitant and unreasonable".Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsAppThe legal battle began after school management imposed the mandatory fee to cover damages estimated at nearly Sh100 million.The petitioners argued that the school administration was "contributorily negligent," alleging that officials failed to prevent the unrest despite receiving intelligence reports of looming trouble.They further claimed that the decision to charge parents was made unilaterally, violating the rights of learners to an education by making readmission conditional on payment.However, Justice Sergon found that the school had followed proper procedures. Evidence presented to the court showed that, the Board of Management (BOM) held participatory meetings involving the Parents’ Association before establishing the levy.The court also noted that regional Public Works officers and assessors conducted an on-site inspection to verify the damage.It also observed that students had vandalised classrooms, offices, teacher quarters, the dining hall, and school buses."I am persuaded that the imposition of the levy does not violate the students' right to education," Justice Sergon stated in his ruling, noting that the right to education is "dependent on the conditions imposed by learning institutions".The court also rejected a plea to dissolve the school’s Board of Management and replace the Chief Principal.Justice Sergon agreed with the respondents that the petitioners had jumped the gun, violating the "doctrine of exhaustion" by not following the specific procedures for board dissolution laid out in the Basic Education Regulations.While the petition was dismissed, the court acknowledged it was a matter of public interest. Consequently, Justice Sergon ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPFollow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

Justice Joseph Sergon sitting in Kericho ruled that the levy was neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional, dealing a blow to the petitioners who had challenged it.The petitioners, Sheria Mtaani and Shadrack Wambui, had challenged the fee as "exorbitant and unreasonable".Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsAppThe legal battle began after school management imposed the mandatory fee to cover damages estimated at nearly Sh100 million.The petitioners argued that the school administration was "contributorily negligent," alleging that officials failed to prevent the unrest despite receiving intelligence reports of looming trouble.They further claimed that the decision to charge parents was made unilaterally, violating the rights of learners to an education by making readmission conditional on payment.However, Justice Sergon found that the school had followed proper procedures. Evidence presented to the court showed that, the Board of Management (BOM) held participatory meetings involving the Parents’ Association before establishing the levy.The court also noted that regional Public Works officers and assessors conducted an on-site inspection to verify the damage.It also observed that students had vandalised classrooms, offices, teacher quarters, the dining hall, and school buses."I am persuaded that the imposition of the levy does not violate the students' right to education," Justice Sergon stated in his ruling, noting that the right to education is "dependent on the conditions imposed by learning institutions".The court also rejected a plea to dissolve the school’s Board of Management and replace the Chief Principal.Justice Sergon agreed with the respondents that the petitioners had jumped the gun, violating the "doctrine of exhaustion" by not following the specific procedures for board dissolution laid out in the Basic Education Regulations.While the petition was dismissed, the court acknowledged it was a matter of public interest. Consequently, Justice Sergon ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPFollow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

The petitioners, Sheria Mtaani and Shadrack Wambui, had challenged the fee as "exorbitant and unreasonable".Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsAppThe legal battle began after school management imposed the mandatory fee to cover damages estimated at nearly Sh100 million.The petitioners argued that the school administration was "contributorily negligent," alleging that officials failed to prevent the unrest despite receiving intelligence reports of looming trouble.They further claimed that the decision to charge parents was made unilaterally, violating the rights of learners to an education by making readmission conditional on payment.However, Justice Sergon found that the school had followed proper procedures. Evidence presented to the court showed that, the Board of Management (BOM) held participatory meetings involving the Parents’ Association before establishing the levy.The court also noted that regional Public Works officers and assessors conducted an on-site inspection to verify the damage.It also observed that students had vandalised classrooms, offices, teacher quarters, the dining hall, and school buses."I am persuaded that the imposition of the levy does not violate the students' right to education," Justice Sergon stated in his ruling, noting that the right to education is "dependent on the conditions imposed by learning institutions".The court also rejected a plea to dissolve the school’s Board of Management and replace the Chief Principal.Justice Sergon agreed with the respondents that the petitioners had jumped the gun, violating the "doctrine of exhaustion" by not following the specific procedures for board dissolution laid out in the Basic Education Regulations.While the petition was dismissed, the court acknowledged it was a matter of public interest. Consequently, Justice Sergon ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPFollow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsAppThe legal battle began after school management imposed the mandatory fee to cover damages estimated at nearly Sh100 million.The petitioners argued that the school administration was "contributorily negligent," alleging that officials failed to prevent the unrest despite receiving intelligence reports of looming trouble.They further claimed that the decision to charge parents was made unilaterally, violating the rights of learners to an education by making readmission conditional on payment.However, Justice Sergon found that the school had followed proper procedures. Evidence presented to the court showed that, the Board of Management (BOM) held participatory meetings involving the Parents’ Association before establishing the levy.The court also noted that regional Public Works officers and assessors conducted an on-site inspection to verify the damage.It also observed that students had vandalised classrooms, offices, teacher quarters, the dining hall, and school buses."I am persuaded that the imposition of the levy does not violate the students' right to education," Justice Sergon stated in his ruling, noting that the right to education is "dependent on the conditions imposed by learning institutions".The court also rejected a plea to dissolve the school’s Board of Management and replace the Chief Principal.Justice Sergon agreed with the respondents that the petitioners had jumped the gun, violating the "doctrine of exhaustion" by not following the specific procedures for board dissolution laid out in the Basic Education Regulations.While the petition was dismissed, the court acknowledged it was a matter of public interest. Consequently, Justice Sergon ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPFollow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

The legal battle began after school management imposed the mandatory fee to cover damages estimated at nearly Sh100 million.The petitioners argued that the school administration was "contributorily negligent," alleging that officials failed to prevent the unrest despite receiving intelligence reports of looming trouble.They further claimed that the decision to charge parents was made unilaterally, violating the rights of learners to an education by making readmission conditional on payment.However, Justice Sergon found that the school had followed proper procedures. Evidence presented to the court showed that, the Board of Management (BOM) held participatory meetings involving the Parents’ Association before establishing the levy.The court also noted that regional Public Works officers and assessors conducted an on-site inspection to verify the damage.It also observed that students had vandalised classrooms, offices, teacher quarters, the dining hall, and school buses."I am persuaded that the imposition of the levy does not violate the students' right to education," Justice Sergon stated in his ruling, noting that the right to education is "dependent on the conditions imposed by learning institutions".The court also rejected a plea to dissolve the school’s Board of Management and replace the Chief Principal.Justice Sergon agreed with the respondents that the petitioners had jumped the gun, violating the "doctrine of exhaustion" by not following the specific procedures for board dissolution laid out in the Basic Education Regulations.While the petition was dismissed, the court acknowledged it was a matter of public interest. Consequently, Justice Sergon ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPFollow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

The petitioners argued that the school administration was "contributorily negligent," alleging that officials failed to prevent the unrest despite receiving intelligence reports of looming trouble.They further claimed that the decision to charge parents was made unilaterally, violating the rights of learners to an education by making readmission conditional on payment.However, Justice Sergon found that the school had followed proper procedures. Evidence presented to the court showed that, the Board of Management (BOM) held participatory meetings involving the Parents’ Association before establishing the levy.The court also noted that regional Public Works officers and assessors conducted an on-site inspection to verify the damage.It also observed that students had vandalised classrooms, offices, teacher quarters, the dining hall, and school buses."I am persuaded that the imposition of the levy does not violate the students' right to education," Justice Sergon stated in his ruling, noting that the right to education is "dependent on the conditions imposed by learning institutions".The court also rejected a plea to dissolve the school’s Board of Management and replace the Chief Principal.Justice Sergon agreed with the respondents that the petitioners had jumped the gun, violating the "doctrine of exhaustion" by not following the specific procedures for board dissolution laid out in the Basic Education Regulations.While the petition was dismissed, the court acknowledged it was a matter of public interest. Consequently, Justice Sergon ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPFollow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

They further claimed that the decision to charge parents was made unilaterally, violating the rights of learners to an education by making readmission conditional on payment.However, Justice Sergon found that the school had followed proper procedures. Evidence presented to the court showed that, the Board of Management (BOM) held participatory meetings involving the Parents’ Association before establishing the levy.The court also noted that regional Public Works officers and assessors conducted an on-site inspection to verify the damage.It also observed that students had vandalised classrooms, offices, teacher quarters, the dining hall, and school buses."I am persuaded that the imposition of the levy does not violate the students' right to education," Justice Sergon stated in his ruling, noting that the right to education is "dependent on the conditions imposed by learning institutions".The court also rejected a plea to dissolve the school’s Board of Management and replace the Chief Principal.Justice Sergon agreed with the respondents that the petitioners had jumped the gun, violating the "doctrine of exhaustion" by not following the specific procedures for board dissolution laid out in the Basic Education Regulations.While the petition was dismissed, the court acknowledged it was a matter of public interest. Consequently, Justice Sergon ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPFollow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

However, Justice Sergon found that the school had followed proper procedures. Evidence presented to the court showed that, the Board of Management (BOM) held participatory meetings involving the Parents’ Association before establishing the levy.The court also noted that regional Public Works officers and assessors conducted an on-site inspection to verify the damage.It also observed that students had vandalised classrooms, offices, teacher quarters, the dining hall, and school buses."I am persuaded that the imposition of the levy does not violate the students' right to education," Justice Sergon stated in his ruling, noting that the right to education is "dependent on the conditions imposed by learning institutions".The court also rejected a plea to dissolve the school’s Board of Management and replace the Chief Principal.Justice Sergon agreed with the respondents that the petitioners had jumped the gun, violating the "doctrine of exhaustion" by not following the specific procedures for board dissolution laid out in the Basic Education Regulations.While the petition was dismissed, the court acknowledged it was a matter of public interest. Consequently, Justice Sergon ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPFollow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

The court also noted that regional Public Works officers and assessors conducted an on-site inspection to verify the damage.It also observed that students had vandalised classrooms, offices, teacher quarters, the dining hall, and school buses."I am persuaded that the imposition of the levy does not violate the students' right to education," Justice Sergon stated in his ruling, noting that the right to education is "dependent on the conditions imposed by learning institutions".The court also rejected a plea to dissolve the school’s Board of Management and replace the Chief Principal.Justice Sergon agreed with the respondents that the petitioners had jumped the gun, violating the "doctrine of exhaustion" by not following the specific procedures for board dissolution laid out in the Basic Education Regulations.While the petition was dismissed, the court acknowledged it was a matter of public interest. Consequently, Justice Sergon ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPFollow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

It also observed that students had vandalised classrooms, offices, teacher quarters, the dining hall, and school buses."I am persuaded that the imposition of the levy does not violate the students' right to education," Justice Sergon stated in his ruling, noting that the right to education is "dependent on the conditions imposed by learning institutions".The court also rejected a plea to dissolve the school’s Board of Management and replace the Chief Principal.Justice Sergon agreed with the respondents that the petitioners had jumped the gun, violating the "doctrine of exhaustion" by not following the specific procedures for board dissolution laid out in the Basic Education Regulations.While the petition was dismissed, the court acknowledged it was a matter of public interest. Consequently, Justice Sergon ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPFollow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

"I am persuaded that the imposition of the levy does not violate the students' right to education," Justice Sergon stated in his ruling, noting that the right to education is "dependent on the conditions imposed by learning institutions".The court also rejected a plea to dissolve the school’s Board of Management and replace the Chief Principal.Justice Sergon agreed with the respondents that the petitioners had jumped the gun, violating the "doctrine of exhaustion" by not following the specific procedures for board dissolution laid out in the Basic Education Regulations.While the petition was dismissed, the court acknowledged it was a matter of public interest. Consequently, Justice Sergon ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPFollow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

The court also rejected a plea to dissolve the school’s Board of Management and replace the Chief Principal.Justice Sergon agreed with the respondents that the petitioners had jumped the gun, violating the "doctrine of exhaustion" by not following the specific procedures for board dissolution laid out in the Basic Education Regulations.While the petition was dismissed, the court acknowledged it was a matter of public interest. Consequently, Justice Sergon ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPFollow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

Justice Sergon agreed with the respondents that the petitioners had jumped the gun, violating the "doctrine of exhaustion" by not following the specific procedures for board dissolution laid out in the Basic Education Regulations.While the petition was dismissed, the court acknowledged it was a matter of public interest. Consequently, Justice Sergon ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPFollow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

While the petition was dismissed, the court acknowledged it was a matter of public interest. Consequently, Justice Sergon ordered each party to bear their own legal costs.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPFollow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special
offers!

Pick your favourite topics below for a tailor made homepage just for you