[2024] KEHC 5652 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 5652 (KLR)

The court found that all three subjects were of majority age according to their birth certificates and thus not minors under the Children Act. The statutory provisions cited by the applicant apply only to minors, and the applicant failed to provide evidence of special circumstances, such as ongoing education, to justify extension of parental responsibility beyond the age of 18. The court concluded that the main motivation for the application was to pursue pending payments, which the adult subjects could do themselves. Accordingly, the application for guardianship was disallowed.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 5652 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: BF; Respondent: PC; Respondent: BKB; Respondent: BB
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
22 May 2024
Case Number
Adoption Cause E002 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Adoption Cause / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
F Gikonyo
Legal Topics
Guardianship Orders, Parental Responsibility, Age of Majority, Children Act Interpretation
Source Language
English
Family and Children Guardianship Orders Parental Responsibility Age of Majority Children Act Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BF

Applicant

PC

Respondent

BKB

Respondent

BB

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Adoption Cause / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the subjects are minors under the Children Act.
  2. 2 Whether there are special circumstances to extend parental responsibility beyond the 18th birthday of the subjects.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all three subjects were of majority age according to their birth certificates and thus not minors under the Children Act. The statutory provisions cited by the applicant apply only to minors, and the applicant failed to provide evidence of special circumstances, such as ongoing education, to justify extension of parental responsibility beyond the age of 18. The court concluded that the main motivation for the application was to pursue pending payments, which the adult subjects could do themselves. Accordingly, the application for guardianship was disallowed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for guardianship is disallowed.