The Federal High Court’s Arada Division has ruled that Sandford International School’s (SIS) tuition adjustment was not a fee harmonisation, as the institution argued, but a fee increase, delivering a legal victory to nearly 100 parents who contested the decision.

The Court ordered that the affected parents continue paying the pre-February 2024 tuition rates, along with the earlier levels of administration fees and capital levy contributions, effectively reversing the school’s revised billing structure.

The ruling adds a new layer to a long-running dispute between one of Addis Abeba’s oldest elite schools and a group of parents over how tuition fees are structured, justified, and revised.

Sandford International School, established in 1947 during Emperor Haile Selassie’s era, began as a modest community institution. Over nearly eight decades, it has grown into a large international school serving more than 1,000 students from nursery to Year 13, including both foreign students paying in US dollars and Ethiopian students paying in Birr.

In 2013, the school was restructured and registered as Sandford International Endowment School, a charitable organisation regulated by the Authority for Civil Society Organisations (ACSO). It operates under a governance board that includes representatives from the ministries of Education and Foreign Affairs, alongside public figures and parents.

At the centre of the dispute is a four-tier fee system applied to parents based on enrolment timing and student category.

C2 parents were long-standing families paying lower legacy fees. C1 parents enrolled later but still benefited from comparatively reduced rates. C3 covered international students paying in US dollars, while C4 represented the newest cohort paying the highest tuition level.

In February 2024, the school introduced what it described as a “fee harmonisation” policy. Management argued that since all students receive the same educational service, fees should be standardised across categories regardless of enrolment history.

Under this adjustment, C1 and C2 parents were moved into the C4 category, sharply increasing their tuition obligations. The changes also extended to administration fees and capital levies used for operational and infrastructure costs.

The proposal immediately triggered resistance, with parents arguing that the so-called harmonisation was, in effect, a disguised fee hike. Several parent groups escalated the matter to court.

The latest ruling concerns nearly 100 parents represented by lawyer Zenebe Fikrie.

The parents raised two core objections. First, they argued that reclassifying C1 and C2 parents into the higher C4 bracket was unjustified. Second, they challenged the school’s continued practice of denominating tuition in US dollars.

Although Ethiopian parents pay in Birr, the fees are calculated using prevailing exchange rates, a structure that has been in place for more than a decade.

Parents argued that tuition should be set and paid exclusively in Birr to ensure transparency and stability.

The implementation process became a central point of contention in court.

The parents maintained that any tuition revision required prior consultation with the Parent-Teacher Association and a general meeting representing at least 50pc of parents, in line with Ministry of Education directives. They argued that no such consultation took place before the changes were enforced.

The school rejected this interpretation.

Administrators insisted that the measure was not a fee increase but a harmonisation exercise, and therefore fell within the authority of the governing board without requiring PTA approval or wider parental consent.

They further argued that Ministry directives prohibit fee increases, not harmonisation measures, and that their decision remained legally compliant.

On dollar-denominated tuition, the school stated that the system had been introduced with parental agreement over a decade ago and has remained valid since payments are ultimately collected in Birr.

The Arada First Instance Court initially sided with the school, ruling that the shift into the C4 category constituted harmonisation rather than a fee increase, and that the governing board had the authority to implement it.

Parents appealed the decision.

The Federal High Court, presided over by Judge Negash Kidane, overturned the lower court’s ruling and sided with the parents.

The Court found that the school’s measure functioned as a fee increase in substance, not a restructuring of categories.