Wateriv Construction and Supplies Ltd v Sagalla International Talent Academy (Civil Case E040 of 2025) [2025] SCC 3 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection dated 27th June 2025 is merited
The preliminary objection is merited. The claimant sued the school (the academy) instead of the Board of Management, contrary to section 56(8) read with Part 1 of the Fourth Schedule of the Basic Education Act, and the claim was struck out.
The court applied the Mukisa Biscuits definition of a preliminary objection as a pure point of law. Relying on the reasoning in Republic vs The Secretary to the Board of Governors, Musingu High School, the court found that Schedule 4 of the Basic Education Act intended Boards of Management, with perpetual succession, to sue or be sued. The school itself has no legal capacity to sue or be sued except through its Board of Management, so the claimant sued the wrong party and the claim was struck out.
Legal principles established
#- A school cannot be sued in its own name; claims must be brought against the Board of Management as the body corporate with perpetual succession
- A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 27th June 2025 is allowed and the claim stands struck out
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs of the claim
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Small Claims Court jurisdiction (claim struck out on preliminary objection under section 56(8) read with Schedule 4 of the Basic Education Act No. 14 of 2013)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wateriv Construction and Supplies Ltd v Sagalla International Talent Academy (Civil Case E040 of 2025) [2025] SCC 3 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/3/eng@2025-07-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.