[2017] KEHC 8851 (KLR)
The court held that granting interim maintenance would amount to determining the main ground of appeal at the interlocutory stage, which is improper. The issue of whether the respondent had assumed parental responsibility over the minor is central to both the lower court proceedings and the appeal, and should only...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 8851 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: A K B; Respondent: G M A
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 19 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Maintenance Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka, MW Muigai
- Legal Topics
- Child Custody, Child Maintenance, Parental Responsibility
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
A K B
Appellant
G M A
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Maintenance Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should grant interim maintenance for the minor pending the appeal.
- 2 Whether proceedings in the lower court should be stayed pending the determination of the appeal.
- 3 Whether making an order for interim maintenance would amount to disposing of the appeal at the interlocutory stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that granting interim maintenance would amount to determining the main ground of appeal at the interlocutory stage, which is improper. The issue of whether the respondent had assumed parental responsibility over the minor is central to both the lower court proceedings and the appeal, and should only be resolved after a full hearing and upon the taking of evidence. The court further found that staying the lower court proceedings would not prejudice the appellant, as both courts are addressing the same substantive issue. Consequently, the court declined to grant the orders sought in the application for interim maintenance and stay of proceedings, and dismissed the motion.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 15th April 2014 is dismissed.
- Interim orders granted on 17th April 2014 and extended thereafter lapse automatically.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
FAMILY DIVISION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2014
A K B………….….………..………………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
G M A………………………………….…..RESPONDENT
RULING
1. On 21st February 2014, the Children’s Court in Nairobi Children’s Court Children’s Case No. 905 of 2013, delivered a ruling to an application dated 25th June 2013 where it was ordered that custody of the subject child be granted to the appellant, that the case be set down for full hearing on priority basis and both parties be restrained from publishing the matter in the media. The appellant was aggrieved with that decision on the grounds that it did not grant orders for maintenance of the child the subject of the dispute. She then filed the instant appeal.
2. The interlocutory application for determination is dated 15th April 2014. It seeks three principal orders – stay of the proceedings in Children’s Case No. 905 of 2013 pending hearing and determination of this application and appeal, and for maintenance of the minor the subject of the proceedings. The appellant swore an affidavit on 15th April 2015 in support of the application. The issues raised in the affidavit regurgitate the facts the subject of trial at the lower court, and which are also the subject of the appeal. She has attached to her affidavit a number of papers lodged at the lower court as well as the ruling the subject of the appeal.
3. The respondent reacted to the application vide a replying affidavit sworn on 29th April 2014. He denies the allegations made in the supporting affidavit, and largely regurgitates the facts that he placed before the lower court in Children’s Case No. 905 of 2013. To that reply the appellant swore an affidavit on 11th May 2014, largely responding to particular issues raised in the replying affidavit.
4. It was directed on 5th June 2014 that the application be disposed of by way of written submissions. There has been compliance with the said directions. On 31st March 2016, this court, at the request of the appellant, ordered for a report of a children’s officer. The report was filed in court on 4th April 2016.
5. The critical issue in the application is maintenance of the minor the subject of the suit at the lower court. The lower court had the parties cross-examined on the matter, and was reluctant to make any orders at that stage, preferring that that matter be dealt with exhaustively at the full trial. This was founded on the fact that the child in question was not biologically the respondent’s and the issue as to whether he had assumed parental responsibility was a matter that could only be resolved at the conclusion of the matter upon the taking of full evidence.
6. I do not exactly see the value of having a children officer’s report as requested by the appellant. I have perused closely through the report of the children’s officer, and noted that the observations made therein appear to mirror those made by the trial court. It would appear to suggest that the issue be resolved only at the completion of the full trial.
7. I am not persuaded that I ought to make orders on interim maintenance. It is one of the principal grounds of the appeal, indeed it is Ground Number One in the Memorandum of Appeal. Making an order with respect to it would amount to disposing of the appeal at interlocutory stage.
8. Should I order stay of the proceedings before the lower court? I think not. Such proceedings would not prejudice the appellant in any way. Either way, the lower court and the appellate court are being called upon to decide the same point, whether the respondent assumed parental responsibility over the subject child. No prejudice would be suffered should the lower court go ahead to take evidence over the matter. Indeed, it had already ordered that the matter be heard as a matter of priority thereon.
9. Overall, I do not find any material upon which I can grant the orders sought in the Motion dated 15th April 2014. I do hereby dismiss the same. The consequence of this is that the interim orders granted on 17th April 2014, and extended several times thereafter, automatically lapse.
DATED and SIGNED at NAIROBI this 3RD DAY OF MAY, 2017.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE
DELIVERED and SIGNED this 5TH DAY OF MAY, 2017.
M. MUIGAI
JUDGE