Schools have a right to set rules for the conduct of their students

J K (Suing on behalf of C K) v Board of Directors of R School & Another

Petition No. 450 of 2014

High Court of Kenya at Nairobi

Brief facts:
The petitioner filed the mater on behalf of her son, C K, alleging violation of the son’s rights. She alleged that the school rule that prohibited boys from wearing dreadlocks was discriminatory on the basis of their gender and therefore violated article 27 of the Constitution, that the failure to allow CK back to school violated his rights to education under article 43, and that requiring him to shave his dreadlocks violated his rights to culture as guaranteed under article 44. She contended that dreadlocks was a part of the culture of Jamaica from which C K’s father hailed and which C K visited regularly.
Issues

1. Whether a school’s code of conduct requiring boys to keep their hair short, neat and well groomed was discriminatory in relation to boys and therefore a violation of article 27 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (prohibiting discrimination).
2. Whether by a school suspending a minor from school for non-compliance with the school’s grooming code was a violation of the right to education under article 43 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
3. Whether by a school proscribing wearing of dreadlock by school boys is a violation of the right to culture under article 44 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010

Constitutional Law – fundamental rights and freedoms - enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms – freedom from discrimination –right to education – right to culture – Constitution of Kenya,2010 articles 27, 43 & 44
The School’s code of regulations stated:

“It is your responsibility to know the uniform guidelines and to dress appropriately. Shirts must be tucked in neatly and trousers should not be allowed to sag.  Jewellery is not allowed, but girls may wear one stud on each ear lobe.  Boys are not allowed to keep beards and must have short, neat, well groomed hair. Hairstyles for girls should be simple and of natural colour.  Hair and braids must be tied back so as to look neat and tidy. Only clear nail vanish is allowed.”

Held:

1. Educational institutions had the right to set rules of conduct for their students. Courts could not ordinarily interfere with those rules and regulations except in very exceptional circumstances. The courts recognized that it was those charged with the responsibility of educating children and nurturing them into adults who respected the rule of law and the rights of others who were best placed to make regulations for students, and enforce them. Only if it was demonstrated that such rules or the enforcement thereof, violated the rights of those subject to them, or the constitution could the courts intervene.
2. The “hair length rule” under attack in the instant case was not discriminatory and was not therefore in breach of article 27 of the Constitution. A code of conduct which applied a conventional standard of appearance was not, of itself, discriminatory.
3. It could not be said that boys were singled out because of their sex for a requirement that they had to cut their hair short. It was because long hair was conventional for girls, but was stylish for boys, that rule required boys to cut their hair short. Therefore, there was nothing discriminatory about the requirement that boys could not wear dreadlocks. The school had a right to insist upon observance of the grooming rule with respect to hair by students enrolled in the school.
4. Article 43 guaranteed everyone the right to education. The constitutional responsibility was placed on the state to achieve progressive realization of that right. However, there was no obligation placed on a private entity such as the respondent school to provide such right. Further, the respondents had not expelled the minor from school but had only insisted on his compliance with the grooming code.
5. Whereas it was accepted that dreadlocks could be part of certain cultures, and as such one could not be compelled to remove them as that would be in violation of their right to enjoy an aspect of their culture; the petitioner had an obligation to demonstrate how wearing of dreadlocks was part of Jamaican culture. The petitioner failed to do that apart from the bare allegation that the minor’s father was of Jamaican descent.

Petition dismissed