“Respondents are hereby directed to forthwith readmit M.L.A into class unconditionally,” justice John Chigiti ordered
In interim orders issued on March 4, 2026, the court directed the school to forthwith readmit the student, identified in court documents as M.L.A, unconditionally so that he can resume his studies.
The court certified the application filed by the student’s parent as urgent and scheduled the matter for mention on March 12, 2026 to confirm compliance with its directions.
According to the application, the student, a Form Four candidate preparing for the national examinations scheduled for November 2026, has been out of school since February 12, 2026, when he was suspended by the institution.
The parent argues that despite the suspension period running from February 12 to February 24, 2026, the school has allegedly refused to allow the student back to class, effectively keeping him out of school even after the lapse of the suspension period.
“The student has been denied the fundamental right to be heard, and that no proper or lawful disciplinary process was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the school’s own regulations, rendering the purported suspension and continued exclusion unlawful and procedurally flawed,” reads court papers
In the court papers, the applicant though lawyer Danstan Omari contends that the continued exclusion is unlawful and violates the student’s constitutional and statutory right to education.
The parent further claims the disciplinary action was procedurally flawed, arguing that the student was not accorded an opportunity to be heard before the decision was made, contrary to the principles of natural justice and the school’s own disciplinary regulations.
The suit also cites Section 35 of the Basic Education Act and the Fair Administrative Action Act, arguing that the decision making process was illegal, unreasonable, and failed to meet the standards of fair administrative action.
The applicant maintains that keeping the student out of school at such a critical stage of his academic career is gravely prejudicial, noting that he is preparing for his final secondary school examinations.
The court was told that the continued absence from school could negatively affect the student’s academic preparation, psychological well-being, and future prospects, while his peers continue with learning.
