https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7087

In re Baby KO (Minor) (Adoption Cause E171 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 7087 (KLR) (Family) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7087 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Adoption Cause E171 of 2024 HK Chemitei, J May 21, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF BABY KO (MINOR) AND Between ES Applicant and PAO 1st Respondent IAO 2nd Respondent FU 3rd Respondent and ES Interested Party Ruling 1.Before the Court are two sets of applications by the Applicant ES dated 5th March 2025 and 30th September 2025. 2.The first application dated 5th March 2025 prays for the following orders:(a)That the Court do stay the execution of its judgment and orders issued on the 30th January 2025 as the Applicant/Interested Party is the biological father of the minor herein and there is appending suit (Milimani Children’s Case E2215 /2024 ES v. FU)(b)That the Court do issue orders through the Director of Immigration restraining the minor KO aka KOO aka KE aka LM the subject matter herein from leaving the jurisdiction of this Court(c)The Court be pleased to order a DNA test to be conducted between the Applicant/Interested Party herein and the minor KO aka KOO aka KE aka LM to confirm paternity. 3.The application is based on the grounds thereof and the sworn affidavit of the Applicant dated same date. 4.The substance of the application is that the Applicant is claiming to be the biological father of the minor and the biological mother of the minor is FU the third Respondent. 5.He further states that the minor has a sister by the name IF who were all born in Kenya and he has attached the relevant birth notifications. 6.That he had been tracing the children from August 2024 and finally found them. 7.However, the Respondent’s jointly and severally made an application to adopt them despite a matter pending at the subordinate Court. 8.It is his case that the 3rd Respondent through Maisha safe house planned the fraudulent adoption of the said minor by claiming that the child was her niece and that she did have a father or mother. 9.It is his case therefor that the application be granted and the orders sought be allowed. 10.The 1st Respondent on the other hand opposed the application vide his replying affidavit sworn in his own behalf and the 2nd Respondent his wife, dated 23rd June 2025 in which he denied the Applicants allegations, namely that the adoption process was malicious and fraudulent. 11.He averred that they followed the legal protocols required in such an exercise by obtaining all the relevant documentations and consents and that the Court was correct and satisfied itself before issuing the adoption orders dated 30th January 2025. 12.It is also his case that the minors mother delivered on 7th October 2017 when she was under 18 years and that there was an element of defilement. Further that the Applicants relatives trafficked the minor and was subjected to sexual assault. 13.He stated that the entire legal process has prejudiced the minor who has had to be moved severally and further unable to process the birth certificate for purposes of school registration among other legal requirements. 14.The Applicant’s application dated 30th September 2025 seeks orders that:(a)The Court be pleased to consider the Applicant’s attached submissions and further affidavit and deem as properly filed.(b)The Court be pleased to consider the DNA conducted in Milimani Children’s Case No E2215 /2024 proving the Applicant as the biological father of the minor. 15.The application is based on the sworn affidavit by the Applicant dated same date. 16.The said affidavit contains the said submissions which I have had the benefit of perusing. 17.The 1st Respondent swore his affidavit in opposition dated 22nd January 2026 asking the Court not to allow the said submissions as the Applicant had all the time to file. 18.I think to be fair to the Applicant and to avoid reliance on procedural technicalities I shall allow the application dated 30th September 2025 as it does not in any manner prejudice the Respondents in any manner. 19.The DNA report which is contained in the lower Court’s file is before the Court and I have perused it together with the trial Court’s proceedings. Analysis And Determination 20.I have perused the application and the history of this matter and my directions of 20th November 2025. 21.It is true that on 30th January 2025 the Court was satisfied that all the necessary procedures and protocols had been undertaken by the Respondents in quest for adoption of the minor herein. 22.There were sufficient paper trail to permit the Court render its judgement in favour of the Respondents. 23.It has however appeared to me from the application that there were issues which were concealed by the Respondents then. 24.First of all, there is no doubt that the Applicant is the father to the minor based on the DNA report dated 27th March 2025 and produced at the lower Court. The said report by one Okworo a Government Analyst states in conclusion that:“Based on the DNA profiles generated from the above list samples, there are 99.99 % more chances that ES is the biological father to both LM alias KOO and FO ,FU children” 25.Florence is the 3rd Respondent and the Applicant has consistently maintained that she disappeared with the said minor. 26.Apparently, she has not filed any response in support of the co- Respondents neither has she denied the averments by the Applicant. 27.In the absence of any other scientific evidence to the contrary I easily conclude that the minor herein is the child to the Applicant and the 3rd Respondent. 28.Much has been said about the way the adoption process was undertaken. If indeed the 3rd Respondent knew that the Applicant was the father to the minor, why did she not raise it with the agencies responsible for the adoption? 29.If she went through human trafficking as the Respondents claim Courtesy of the Applicant, why was she silent over the years? 30.More importantly she has not denied that the other child Favour Omtesi is their biological child with the Applicant as well. 31.In my view therefore, the entire adoption process was fraudulent to say the least. There was no consent from the Applicant and it does not matter what the Respondents alleges. Having bonded with the minor Courtesy of an adoption process marred with irregularities does not permit this Court to sanction it. 32.As a matter of fact, this is a matter in which the investigative agencies must carry out thorough investigation and arrive at the root cause of how the minor left the Applicant and whether or not the 3rd Respondent was complicit. 33.The authorities cited by the Respondents are not in line with the circumstances herein. The Applicant has clearly demonstrated that the minor is his child and that he did not grant any consent to have her adopted. 34.In the premises the application is allowed as hereunder:(a)The judgement of this Court dated 30th January 2025 is hereby set aside with all the attendant consequences.(b)The minor herein LM alias KOO be returned to the Applicant forthwith and within three days from the date herein and the Department of Children’s Services Nairobi County together with the office of the Inspector General of Police and or his nominee to ensure compliance.(c)Any documents whether legal or otherwise bearing other names other than LM alias KOO are hereby cancelled for all intent and purposes.(d)The Director Criminal Investigation (DCI) is hereby directed to carry out investigations with possibility of taking out criminal charges against any of the parties or agencies complicit in this matter.(e)Costs of this suit to the Applicant to be paid jointly and severally by the Respondents.(f)This order be served upon the Registrar General. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026.H K CHEMITEIJUDGE