A father has taken Kiambu High School to court for subjecting his son to a drug test, arguing that it violated his rights and caused him embarrassment in front of parents, teachers, and fellow students.
In the petition, the father – identified in court papers as MKS – claims the school suspended his son on January 15, 2025, after accusing him of smoking marijuana.
The school directed the boy to undergo a test at Elewa Ulevi, an outpatient addiction treatment center, and warned that if the results came back positive, he would have to appear before the Board of Management on January 23, 2025.
The test returned negative, and the principal allowed the student to return to class. But MKS filed the petition, saying the ordeal humiliated his son and forced him to miss eight days of learning. He also alleged that on January 8, 2025, the first term’s reopening date, the principal had sent him a message barring the student from reporting to school for failing to attend a disciplinary committee meeting the previous term.
MKS is seeking compensation, claiming the school violated his son’s constitutional rights under Articles 28, 29(d), 43(1)(f), 47(1), 50(1), and 53(1)(d).
The school objected to the case, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the matter should be heard by the Education Appeals Tribunal under Regulations 40 and 41 of the Basic Education Regulations.
Court Rejects School Objection
However, Justice Abigail Mshila of the High Court in Kiambu dismissed the objection, ruling that the case falls outside the tribunal’s purview.
“The upshot is that the preliminary objection lacks merit, and it is hereby overruled. The petition shall proceed for hearing to its logical conclusion,” she said.
The judge explained that the January 15 suspension letter was a conditional measure meant to facilitate the drug test.
“If the test turned positive, the student would have been required to appear before the Board of Management on January 23, 2025. The test turned negative on January 15, 2025, and the student was allowed back to class,” she noted.
Lady Justice Mshila further outlined the legal procedure for handling disciplinary cases, stressing that Regulation 39 requires a school’s Board of Management to hear complaints against a student and make recommendations to the County Director of Education.
Under Regulation 40, the director must then consult the County Education Board to decide whether to readmit the learner, transfer them to another school, or send them to a corrective centre. Regulation 41 allows anyone aggrieved by such a decision to appeal to the Education Appeals Tribunal.
The case will be mentioned again on October 22, 2025.
