Parents sue private school challenging its revised fee structure

Two parents have sued a private school in Mombasa challenging its revised fee structure for 2026/27.

The parents claim that Khoja Shia Ithna Ashari Education Board trading as Jaffery Academy failed to provide affected parents with information necessary to understand and assess the revision before it was implemented.

They further say that their children were enrolled at the Academy before the 2026/27 academic year and remain continuing learners.

In their petition at the High Court in Mombasa, they say that on July 14, 2026, the institution sent the first petitioner (one of the parents) emails attaching invoices in respect of his children.

“The invoices reflected tuition fees of KES 70,000 for k2, KES 115,000 for year two and KES 130,000 for year five together with applicable activity and insurance charges,” part of the petition states.

According to the petition, the petitioners are suing in their own capacities as parents and guardians of learners enrolled at Jaffery Academy, on behalf of the children and in the interest of similarly affected parents, guardians and learners.

They claim that the institution violated or threatened their rights by determining and invoicing increased charges without prior disclosure of the proposed revision, reasons or basis.

The petitioners also claim that the institution violated or threatened their rights by placing continuing parents under compressed timetable while retaining a three full calendar month withdrawal requirement during which fees remained payable.

The petitioners also argue that the respondent violated or threatened their rights by offering post decision discounts and individual arrangements without addressing the legality and transparency of the process.

The petitioners want a declaration that the process through which the respondent (Academy) determined and implemented the revised 2026/27 fee structure, without prior disclosure and affording applicable parental governance bodies an opportunity to discuss and recommend the proposed charges and in respect of pre-primary section to discuss and approve the proposed charges was inconsistent with the Basic Education Act and Early Childhood Education Act.

The petitioners argue that upon comparison with the respondent’s (institution) invoices for the corresponding classes during term one of 2025/26 academic year, the tuition charges had increased from KES 55,000 to 70,000 for K2, from KES 90,000 to 115,000 for year two and from KES 110,000 to 130,000 for year five.

“The emails of July 14 were the first communication through which the increased fees were applicable to those corresponding classes were communicated to the first petitioner, by then the amounts had already been determined and invoiced,” the petition states in part.

The petitioners argue that before the invoices were issued, the first petitioner had not been informed that the applicable fees were under review, furnished with proposed charges, or their reasons and material basis or invited to make representations before the amounts were determined.

They argue that the first petitioner had not been consulted by the institution, a Parents Association or Parents Teachers Association (PTA) or any parent representative regarding the proposed charges.

“He was not notified of any meeting of such a body at which the charges were considered or furnished with any notice, attendance record, minutes or recommendation concerning such consideration,” the petition states.

The petitioners further claim that the respondent subsequently issued a general communication dated July 16 confirming that invoices had been sent and setting out early payment, bulk payment and sibling discount.

“It did not disclose the basis of increased amounts or invite parents to participate in their consideration,” the petitioners argue.

The petitioners further say that the second petitioner attended a meeting between members of the board and concerned parents.

They argue that at the meeting, parents raised the revised fees process and the absence of an operational Parents Association or PTA.

The petitioners claim that the board did not furnish documents showing that such a body had considered the revised charges before they were communicated and implemented and declined the request to suspend implementation.

The petitioners also say that by a letter dated August 27, 2026, the county government of Mombasa Department of Education and Vocational Training invited the respondent and concerned parents to a joint meeting.

They argue that the respondent did not attend the meeting, but an unsigned letter attributed to it was presented to those attending and shared with the liaison team.

According to the petitioners, on September 12, 2026, the respondent sent to the first petitioner an urgent notice requiring all outstanding school fees accounts to be settled by Close of Business on September 14, 2026, stating that if no payment or formal communication regarding an account was received by that date, it (respondent) reserved the right to treat the admission as cancelled.

“The respondent failed to accord the best interests of the affected children paramount importance by enforcing the revised charges under a compressed timetable and threatening cancellation of admission before addressing the legality of the process thereby exposing the continuing learners to disruption of their education for circumstances arising from a dispute between adults responsible for them,” the petition states in part.

The petitioners also want a declaration that the impugned process violated or threatened their rights and similarly affected parents, guardians and learners under the constitution and failed to accord the best interests of affected learners’ paramount importance.

They also want the court to issue an order quashing the respondent’s decision to implement the revised 2026/27 fee structure as communicated through invoices dated July 14, and notices dated July 16 and August 27.

The case will be mentioned on September 30, 2026, for directions.