A section of parents of St Bakhita schools have sued the institution l for increasing fees in the middle of the year without sufficient notice.
The institution is private but is bound by several laws.
In a petition lodged at the Milimani Law Courts, the parents want the court to prohibit the schools from implementing the decision to increase fees as contained in invoices for term two of the year 2024.
The parents through their lawyer Charles Mwalimu argue that the contract is pre-negotiated at the start of every school year by issuance of a fee structure for the year and subsequent year and that by their understanding is that the terms of the contract would not be varied before the end of the two academic years.
The parents who sued St. Bakhita Schools Limited, St. Bakhita Daycare and Kindergarten Limited, St. Bakhita Junior Secondary School Limited and St Bakhita Holdings Limited say they will be occasioned substantial loss and hardship “thereby suffering grave injustice since it is not practically possible for them to transfer their children from the schools and/or make other school related adjustments.”
“Pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-parties there be a temporary order of injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, or through their agents and/or servants or other persons deriving authority from them howsoever from implementing the decision to increase fees as contained in invoices for term II of the year of 2024 or from the discontinuance of any learner from attending classes and other school related activities,” read court papers.
Mwalimu says the increment was done without adequate notice to the parents and by an entity that is a stranger to the service contracts between the parents and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants.
Further they allege that, despite the school’s parents teachers association (PTA) raising the issue with St Bakhita Holdings Limited they showed no commitment to address the issues raised by the parents.
“There exists no contract between the plaintiffs and the 4th defendant and that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations on any person other than the parties to the contract. Accordingly, a contract cannot be enforced either by or against a third party.”
They contend that the schools are obliged to give them one term’s notice before increasing fees as they are also required to give at least one term’s notice in the event any of them intends to transfer their child(ren) from the schools.
“It is reasonably expected that the defendants (school) had a reciprocal obligation to give the plaintiffs one term’s notice before increasing school fees,” they argue.
They say “the information supplied to them by the schools at the start of every year is binding for two years, and any changes made would necessarily need engagement, justifiable reason and notice of at least one school term consent.”
Further they say, the strong party in a contractual relationship should not be allowed to steamroll over the weaker party.
If not so, they allege, consumer protection would not have been entrenched in the constitution of Kenya.
The parents accuse the schools of contravening the provisions of the fair administrative action act CAP 7L of Kenya and Consumer Protection Act and constitutional provisions which binds the schools by threatening to withdraw services if the parents do not comply with the timelines.
They argued that the defendants have maintained a policy of fee increment every two years for the past 20 years and that their legitimate expectation was the next fee increment would take effect from term one of 2025 since the last increment was in term one of 2023.
“The action by defendants (school) to increase school fees before the lapse of two years is a breach of the plaintiffs’ legitimate expectations as well as breach of the plaintiffs’ rights under various contracts entered into with the defendants.”
“This action is also in total disregard of the plaintiffs’ rights under the consumer protection act, the fair administrative action act, the law of contract and the constitution of Kenya,” they argue.
According to Martin Mutua, one of the parents, 10 days after issuance of the notice and about 22 days to opening of schools after April holiday, and in blatant disregard of the parents’ concerns, the schools issued invoices to them which reflected an increase of transport fee with a margin of 40-41%, tuition fees with a margin of 20-21% and co-curriculum activities with a margin of 20-40% depending on the particular co-curriculum activity.
Justice Asenath Ongeri has since certified the matter as urgent and ordered the matter to be heard on May 14.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
