The director of St Bakhita Schools has been ordered to appear before a judge next week and explain why she should not be punished for disobeying a court order on the adjustment of school fees.
High Court Judge Janet Mulwa directed Felista Mutinda to appear before her on July 30 and show cause why she should not be punished for contempt of court.
The judge noted that the schools had adjusted Term 2 fees, against a court order, blocking the review of the fees upwards.
“By proceeding to issue the notice on January 29, 2025, the school was clearly in breach of the court order. In my view, Ms Mutinda’s actions were willful, deliberate and constitute willful disobedience of the interim orders of the court,” said the judge.
In the notice, the management had informed parents that the fees would be adjusted upwards to sustain the high standards, as the school navigated the rising operational costs.
Over 1,000 parents moved to court in April last year, accusing the school, which runs St Bakhita Daycare & Kindergarten, primary and junior secondary schools in several campuses, of revising the fees by up to 20 percent mid-term, citing inflation. The parents said the move would disrupt their children's learning.
In an affidavit, Martin Mutua said that for the past 20 years, the management has maintained a policy of fee increment every two years.
Mr Mutua added that the contract is pre-negotiated at the start of every school year through a fee structure, which is accepted by the parents on the understanding that it would not be varied before the end of two academic years.
However, on April 9, 2024, a few days to the re-opening of school after the April holiday, the schools issued invoices that reflected an increase of transport fees with a margin of 40-41 percent, tuition fees with a margin of 20-21 percent and co-curriculum activities with a margin of 20-40 percent, depending on the particular co-curriculum activity.
The Parents and Teachers Association (PTA), which brings together approximately 4,000 parents, teachers, school management and staff, also supported the case, arguing that the 21-day notice to adjust the fee was too short and unfair.
In a ruling last year, Justice Mulwa issued a temporary order, blocking the increment, pending the determination of the case.
The judge said private schools are not private clubs, which operate on their rigid rules; they are part and parcel of the bigger educational institutions that offer education services and therefore bound by applicable legislation.
Ms Mutinda, on her part, said the order was to lapse after 120 days and that the notice was not directed at all parents.
She also pleaded with the court to review the order, arguing that it was hurting the schools and that they would not sustain their operations in the upcoming academic year, and would thus be constrained to take drastic measures to keep the schools as a going concern or close the schools altogether.
The judge declined a review of the orders, noting that the school had filed an appeal against the ruling.
“Thus, the defendants cannot purport to concurrently or sequentially continue with the pursuit of both the review and appeal,” said the judge.
