By Benadeta Mwaura - Reporter
Kenya, January 05 2026 - Parents of students at Litein Boys High School have been ordered to collectively pay Sh69 million in damages arising from a violent riot at the institution, a landmark ruling that underscores increasing accountability for school discipline.
A Rift Valley court has ruled that parents of pupils at Litein Boys High School must pay a total of Sh69 million ($531,000) in compensation to victims of a violent student riot that engulfed the school in late 2024 and early 2025. The decision, one of the first of its kind in Kenya, has sparked debate about parental responsibility, student behaviour and school governance.
Background: What Sparked the Riot
Litein Boys High School, a well-known national school in Bomet County, was rocked by a series of riots beginning in November 2024 and continuing intermittently into early 2025.
According to court records and reports from the Ministry of Education, the unrest began after disciplinary measures were imposed on a group of students found violating school rules. The unrest quickly escalated, with some students engaging in arson, destruction of property, and violent confrontations with security personnel.
Large dormitories, classroom blocks, and school equipment were burned or severely damaged. Local police and anti-riot units were eventually deployed to restore order, after students refused repeated calls to calm down and return to classes.
The Ministry of Education declared the situation a major security breach and public safety hazard, prompting a suspension of the affected students and a full investigation into how the riots developed.
Parents were summoned for meetings with school authorities, but unrest continued despite repeated warnings.
Court Ruling: Hold Parents Liable
In a landmark decision, the Eldoret High Court concluded that parents of students involved in the riots were jointly and severally liable to compensate victims and the school for the material damage caused.
Judge Alice Njagi ruled that while students were the direct perpetrators, parents bear some responsibility for ensuring proper conduct and supervision of their children, especially in boarding school contexts where governance frameworks depend on parental oversight.
The Sh69 million award covers:
1. Repair and reconstruction of damaged buildings
2. Replacement of school equipment and books
3. Medical expenses for injured staff and students
4. Legal costs and interest from the date of judgment
In delivering the judgment, the court cited sections of the Law of Contract Act, the Children Act, and civil liability principles, noting that parents have a duty to supervise minors and take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm.
“Parents cannot outsource all responsibility to institutions alone,” Justice Njagi said. “Where minors cause harm, especially repeatedly over time, courts may look beyond the immediate perpetrators to those who have a duty of implicit oversight.”
More from Kenya
Reactions: Mixed Views from Community and Advocates
The ruling has generated mixed reactions from parents, educators and legal experts. Samuel Kiptoo, father of a student at another national school, supported the judgment as a way to deter indiscipline: “If parents must contribute when children misbehave, maybe more of us will be involved in monitoring and guiding them.”
In contrast, Esther Nyambura, a children’s rights activist with the Centre for Rights and Reforms, expressed concern: “While accountability is important, we must be cautious about holding parents financially liable for acts directly committed by their children without addressing systemic issues like school overcrowding, teacher shortages and pupil welfare.”
Child law researchers also point out that under Kenya’s Children Act, parental responsibility includes providing proper moral guidance, but not necessarily automatic financial liability, a point likely to be tested on appeal.
Students Speak Out
Former students involved in the riot, who appeared as witnesses during the hearing, said that a buildup of tension preceded the outbreaks of violence. They cited poor communication between school administrators and pupils, harsh disciplinary regimes, and allegations of unequal punishments.
Former prefect Brian Chesang testified that “many boys felt unheard” and that tensions were compounded by rumours of mistreatment by certain teachers. His testimony did not absolve responsibility but provided context for the unrest.
Government and Ministry Reaction
The Ministry of Education welcomed the court’s emphasis on discipline but pledged to work on structural reforms to curb the recurrence of such incidents. In a statement, the ministry said it will:
1. Support the reconstruction of Litein Boys’ facilities
2. Collaborate with parents and teachers to strengthen student engagement frameworks
3. Review disciplinary policies to ensure fairness and transparency
Education Secretary Dr. Elijah Basweti said, “Discipline is essential for learning. We support accountability, but we also recognise the importance of addressing underlying school culture and management issues.”
Discipline and Accountability in Kenyan Schools
The ruling highlights broader challenges in Kenya’s education system, where student unrest, driven by factors such as exam stress, perceived injustices, poor living conditions and emotional tensions, is not uncommon.
In recent years, authorities have responded with a mix of suspensions, demolitions of riot-level damage, and reforms aimed at improving student welfare and conflict resolution. Public debates are now turning toward how best to combine accountability, child protection, parental engagement and institutional reforms to ensure that similar episodes are prevented.
Critics of the ruling argue that systemic problems, including understaffed schools, scarce psychosocial support for students, and a culture of corporal discipline, deserve equal attention alongside legal liability.
Legal observers say that while this ruling may set precedent, it is likely to be appealed to higher courts, with arguments focusing on constitutional protections for children, parental rights under the Children Act, and the extent to which civil liability can be imposed on families for acts of autonomous minors.
