The High Court has affirmed Nairobi School’s decision to kick out a Form Four student over indiscipline.
Justice Wilfrida Okwany found that the student, identified as HOO, was legally suspended in February, this year.
The judge observed that if she ordered that the boy be re-admitted, it would send the wrong signal to others that they could get away with rebellion.
“My humble view is that, in the circumstances of this case, readmitting the petitioner to the same school will send a negative message to the rest of the students that disobeying school rules attracts no consequences, a scenario that may result in the first respondent (Nairobi School) becoming an institution that has students whose behaviour is ungovernable,” the judge ruled.
National school
READ MORE
Interior ministry orders closure of bars near 2,252 schools
Government begins distribution of Grade Nine textbooks to schools
Transition crisis as over 200,000 learners fail to reach Form Four
50 days to Grade 9 rollout: Are schools ready for CBC transition?
She continued: “This court notes that the first respondent is a national school hosting more than a thousand students from all over the country who are equally entitled to their right to protection from the negative influence or behaviour that may arise from readmitting students who had already exhibited deviant behaviour.”
Justice Okwany observed that with the recent cases of indiscipline in schools, teachers are entitled to take steps to protect other students and property within schools.
She said that those caught in the wrong side of the law should carry their own cross.
The boy will, however, sit his national exam, which start in two months’ time.
The student was suspended in February, this year, following claims of indiscipline and drug abuse.
Disciplinary committee
On February 21, he was summoned to face the school’s disciplinary committee and upon deliberation of the case, it recommended that he should not be readmitted but only allowed to return and sit his Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education examination.
In the case, the student complained that his continued stay out of school would negatively affect his performance.
It, however, emerged that he had admitted the charges levelled against him. He, however, asked for leniency, saying he was remorseful and had undergone counselling.
According to the Principal Caspal Maina, the student had between January 13 and 19 mobilised others to contribute money which he used to buy alcohol.
After they got drunk, the court heard, he alongside seven other students became rowdy.
The principal said allowing the student back would mean the right to education and safety of 1,500 students in the school would be compromised.
