Justice David Mburu finds parents failed to prove illegality or procedural unfairness, leaving Oshwal’s disputed 2026/2027 fees intact.
The High Court has upheld the six per cent increase in fees by the Oshwal Education & Relief Board for 2026/2027.
Justice David Mburu dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the increase announced for September 2026.
The petition was filed by parents Erick Ngala and Rahela Akram Bano against Oshwal.
They argued that the school had increased fees without meaningful participation by affected parents.
They also alleged violations involving education, consumer protection, and fair administrative action.
The parents further questioned whether Oshwal maintained a properly constituted Parents Association under Kenyan law.
Their challenge therefore placed parental participation against the autonomy enjoyed by private schools.
The court was consequently asked to examine more than the financial impact.
It had to determine whether Oshwal had breached constitutional and statutory obligations.
Justice Mburu ultimately found that the parents had not proved their allegations.
The ruling was delivered virtually in Nairobi on September 18, 2026.
Parents Protest
The dispute followed communication announcing revised fees for the new academic year.
The parents argued that Oshwal had failed to properly consult families before imposing additional charges.
They particularly relied on section 55(3) of the Basic Education Act.
That provision requires private schools to establish Parents Associations under prescribed statutory arrangements.
The petitioners argued that an annual general meeting could not replace that statutory body.
They said parents deserved continuing participation in decisions affecting school governance and finances.
Their argument drew additional strength from Oshwal’s earlier legal history involving parental participation.
In September 2020, Justice Weldon Korir ruled in another dispute involving Oshwal Academy.
That case followed disagreements surrounding online learning during the Covid-19 school closures.
Justice Korir found that Oshwal had failed to establish the required Parents Association.
He consequently ordered the school to establish one within 120 days.
The earlier judgement became an important backdrop to the latest challenge.
The petitioners argued that Oshwal could not ignore those earlier judicial directions.
They therefore sought orders invalidating the increased fees and requiring proper parental representation.
School Defends
Oshwal strongly rejected the suggestion that it had imposed the increase arbitrarily.
The institution said the decision followed an established process involving parents and learners.
It pointed to an annual general meeting held during May 2026.
According to Oshwal, the meeting considered the budget before approving the six per cent increase.
Parents subsequently received formal communication dated May 29, 2026.
The school also presented economic reasons for adjusting its charges for the coming year.
It cited rising fuel, electricity, water, and maintenance costs among operational pressures.
Teacher remuneration, learning resources, technology, and student safety also required additional investment.
Oshwal maintained that the increase was reasonable within its private contractual arrangement.
The institution also disputed claims that parents had been excluded from the decision-making process.
Its position was that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any constitutional violation.
Court Rules
Justice Mburu first considered whether the parents had legal standing to bring their petition.
He found that Articles 22 and 258 gave them sufficient standing to approach court.
The judge then considered whether constitutional avoidance prevented him from examining their complaints.
Oshwal had argued that the dispute was fundamentally contractual between parents and school.
Justice Mburu rejected that argument as a reason for avoiding constitutional scrutiny.
He held that alleged rights violations still required examination by the High Court.
The court then examined the parents’ claim that higher fees threatened education rights.
Justice Mburu distinguished constitutional obligations imposed upon the state from private educational arrangements.
He found that private education principally operates through contractual relationships between schools and parents.
The judge therefore rejected the argument that Articles 43 and 53 invalidated Oshwal’s increase.
He similarly found that the petitioners had not demonstrated denial of basic education.
The decisive question then became whether Oshwal had followed a fair administrative process.
Article 47 requires administrative decisions to remain lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.
The Fair Administrative Action Act also provides safeguards where decisions adversely affect affected parties.
Here, Justice Mburu found Oshwal had produced evidence supporting the process it followed.
The school provided AGM minutes showing participation before the increase received approval.
The petitioners, however, failed to provide evidence establishing illegality or procedural impropriety.
The judge consequently found no sufficient evidence of irrationality or unfair administrative action.
That finding became the turning point in the parents’ constitutional challenge.
Petition Fails
Justice Mburu ultimately upheld Oshwal’s authority to adjust fees when proper procedures are followed.
“I therefore uphold the decision of the 1st Respondent,” the judge declared.
The court also rejected allegations involving consumer rights and freedom of association.
The petitioners had failed to produce sufficient evidence supporting those constitutional claims.
The ruling leaves Oshwal’s six per cent increase intact for the 2026/2027 academic year.
It also draws a clear distinction between private-school autonomy and constitutional state obligations.
For parents, the judgement underscores the importance of evidence when challenging private institutions.
For schools, the ruling highlights the importance of documenting consultation and decision-making processes.
The judgement does not suggest that private schools have unlimited freedom over school fees.
Instead, its central finding concerns whether Oshwal followed the required procedure before increasing charges.
The dispute also reflects wider tensions surrounding school fees and parental participation.
Kenyan courts have increasingly confronted disputes involving private schools and their financial decisions.
The Oshwal judgement adds another important chapter to that developing legal conversation.
Justice Mburu ultimately declined all remedies sought by the petitioners after rejecting their constitutional claims.
READ ALSO: Court Awards Woman 75% Share of Karen Home After Bitter Divorce Property Battle
He dismissed the petition after finding that the parents had failed to establish sufficient grounds.
However, the court stopped short of ordering the parents to pay Oshwal’s legal costs.
“Each party shall bear their own costs,” the judge directed.
The immediate result is straightforward: Oshwal’s six per cent fee increase remains in force.
The broader question, however, concerns how far parental participation should influence private-school financial decisions.
That question may return to Kenyan courts as education costs continue changing.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
