Father sues Kiambu High School over drug test that 'embarrassed' son
Central
By
Joackim Bwana
| Sep 23, 2025
A father has sued Kiambu High School for subjecting his son to a drug test, saying it embarrassed him before his parents, teachers, and other students.
And Justice Abagiel Mshil of the High Court in Kiambu dismissed an objection by the school that the courts had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The school filed a petition saying the matter falls under regulations 40 and 41 of the Basic Education Regulations. It said the case should be filed at the Education Appeals Tribunal.
However, the judge said the case is out of the purview of Regulations 40 and 41 of the Basic Education Regulations, and it will be difficult for the Education Appeals Tribunal to hear it.
"The upshot is that the preliminary objection lacks merit, and it is hereby overruled. The petition shall proceed for hearing to its logical conclusion," said Justice Mshila.
READ MORE
The missing link in push for electric bikes' uptake
Research hub launched to bridge skills gap
Pending bills committee gets extension
Netflix, ChatGPT, Airbnb slapped with new digital tax
Stakeholders root for greater Asian community integration in Kenya's economy
Princeton-backed innovation hub launches in Kenya to plug skills gap
Two arrested over Sh3m power infrastructure theft in Kisumu
EU queries Big Tech players Apple, Google, Microsoft over financial scams
He stated that no recommendations were made by the Board of Management to the County Director of Education under Regulation 40.
In this case, the father, MKS, alleges that the tests violated his son's rights. In the suit papers, the student was suspended on January 15, 2025, for allegedly smoking bhang.
He said the school directed that the minor undergo a drug test at “Elewa Ulevi”, and if the test were positive, he was to appear at school on January 23, 2025.
The test was negative, and the principal allowed the minor to go to class. This prompted the minor's father to file a petition alleging that the minor missed classes for eight days.
The petition states that the unnecessary drug tests embarrassed the student before his parents, teachers, and classmates.
MKS said that on January 8, 2025, the reopening date for the first term, he received a message from the school’s principal stating that his son should not report to school for his failure to attend a Discipline Committee meeting scheduled for October 29, 2024, the previous term.
They sought an award of compensation for violation of the son's constitutional rights protected under Articles 28, 29(d), 43(1)(f), 47(1), 50(1), and 53(1)(d) of the constitution.
The judge said the letter dated January 15, 2025, was a conditional suspension as a temporary measure for the student to undergo a drug test, particularly to check whether he used bhang.
"If the test turned positive, the student would have been required to appear before the board of management on January 23, 2025. The test turned negative on January 15, 2025, and the student was allowed back to class," said Justice Mshila.
The judge noted that the procedure for handling disciplinary cases is outlined in Regulation 39 of the Basic Education Regulations.
Justice Mshila said the school’s Board of Management is required to hear the complaint against a student and make recommendations to the County Director of Education.
"Under Regulation 41, any person aggrieved by a decision made under Regulation 40 may appeal to the Education Appeals Tribunal," said Justice Mshila.
He noted that the procedure for handling disciplinary cases is set out in Regulation 39 of the Basic Education Regulations.
The judge said the school’s Board of Management is required to hear the complaint against the student and recommend it to the County Director of Education.
He said that under regulation 40, once the County Director of Education receives the recommendations, he seeks the advice of the County Education Board as to whether to order conditional or unconditional re-admission of the learner, transfer of the learner to an alternative institution, or transfer of the learner to a corrective centre in the context of education.
"Under regulation 41, any person aggrieved by a decision under regulation 40 may appeal to the Education Appeals Tribunal," said Justice Mshila.
The case is scheduled for a mention on October 22, 2025.