DAA v JPO [2025] KEHC 7156 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 7156 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- WM Musyoka
- Case number
- Petition E001 of 2025
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- WM Musyoka
- Case number
- Petition E001 of 2025
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The High Court determined that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine matters concerning paternity and parental responsibility where the enforcement of children's rights under the Children Act is sought, particularly when paternity is denied. The court relied on Section 29(3) of the Children Act, which provides for enforcement of children's rights through the High Court, and on Article 165(3)(a) of the Constitution, which vests the High Court with jurisdiction over constitutional matters. The court also referenced case law affirming the High Court's role in paternity disputes. Consequently, the application was properly before the High Court, and directions were issued for the substantive motion to proceed by way of written submissions.
Court disposition
The High Court affirmed its jurisdiction and directed the matter to proceed by written submissions.
Orders
- The Motion dated 7th May 2025 shall be canvassed by way of written submissions to be filed and exchanged within seven days.
- The matter shall be mentioned on 10th June 2025 to receive submissions and allocate a date for ruling.
- The respondent shall be served with these directions and a mention notice for 10th June 2025.
02
Material facts
Parties
DAA
Applicant Counsel: Ms. Gladys Muinde, instructed by Kinoti Kimathi & Company, AdvocatesJPO
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Constitutional Petition / Preliminary Jurisdictional Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to determine matters of paternity and parental responsibility under the Children Act.
- 02
Whether the application was properly filed before the High Court instead of the Children Court.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the matter was initially filed at the Malaba Law Courts as a Children’s Case, but the court declined jurisdiction on paternity, stating it was an issue for the High Court. The suit was struck out, necessitating refiling at the High Court. The applicant cited Article 165(3)(a) of the Constitution and Sections 29, 32, and 76 of the Children Act to support the High Court's jurisdiction, particularly where paternity is in dispute and enforcement of children's rights is sought.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not appear or make submissions at the inter partes hearing.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 29(3) of the Children Act; Article 165(3)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
The High Court has jurisdiction to enforce rights and fundamental freedoms of children under Part II of the Children Act, especially where paternity is in dispute.
- 02
Section 32 of the Children Act; referenced case law
Children’s Courts have jurisdiction over parental responsibility, but not where paternity is denied and is the central issue.
- 03
ANM vs. FPA [2021] eKLR; DB vs. JK [2024] KEHC 12796 (KLR); FKW vs. DMM [2015] eKLR; MW vs. KC [2005] KEHC 3172 (KLR); MKK vs. LGI [2021] eKLR; PC vs. JMZ [2020] eKLR
Case law supports the High Court's jurisdiction in paternity disputes involving children.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The High Court determined that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine matters concerning paternity and parental responsibility where the enforcement of children's rights under the Children Act is sought, particularly when paternity is denied. The court relied on Section 29(3) of the Children Act, which provides for enforcement of children's rights through the High Court, and on Article 165(3)(a) of the Constitution, which vests the High Court with jurisdiction over constitutional matters. The court also referenced case law affirming the High Court's role in paternity disputes. Consequently, the application was properly before the High Court, and directions were issued for the substantive motion to proceed by way of written submissions.
Obiter and limits
- The Children Act is silent on the procedure where a parent denies parental responsibility and raises paternity as an issue.
- The rights and best interests of the child, including issues of name, nationality, non-discrimination, parental care, and inheritance, are protected under Part II of the Children Act.
Court disposition
The High Court affirmed its jurisdiction and directed the matter to proceed by written submissions.
- The Motion dated 7th May 2025 shall be canvassed by way of written submissions to be filed and exchanged within seven days.
- The matter shall be mentioned on 10th June 2025 to receive submissions and allocate a date for ruling.
- The respondent shall be served with these directions and a mention notice for 10th June 2025.
Source and reliance status
High Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court
Judgment
DAA v JPO (Petition E001 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 7156 (KLR) (28 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 7156 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Busia
Petition E001 of 2025
WM Musyoka, J
May 28, 2025
Between
DAA
Petitioner
and
JPO
Respondent
Ruling
1. When this matter was placed before me, under Certificate of Urgency, on 13th May 2025, I directed that it be served, and, as a preliminary issue, I be addressed on why the matter was filed at the High Court rather than at the Chief Magistrate’s Court, where the Children Court is domiciled, as it appeared to turn on an issue of parental responsibility.
2. The application, dated 13th May 2025, was served. It came up for inter partes hearing on 21st May 2025. Only the Advocate for the Petitioner addressed me. She explained that the matter was initially filed at Malaba Law Courts, as Children’s Case No. E003 of 2024, but the court indicated that it had no jurisdiction on paternity, on the basis that that was an issue for the High Court. The suit was struck out on that account.
3. Article 165 (3) (a) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and Section 76 of the Children Act, Cap 141, Laws of Kenya, were cited.
4. Section 32 of the Children Act provides for the sharing of parental responsibility equally between the parents of the child. However, the Act is silent on what steps are to be taken, where one of the parents denies parental responsibility and raises the issue of paternity.
5. The rights and best interests of the child are delineated in Part II of the Children Act. the rights listed, which could touch on paternity, relate to name and nationality at Section 5, non-discrimination at Section 9, parental care at Section 11, to inheritance at Section 17, among others.
6. Section 29 of the Children Act allows any person to institute court proceedings to claim any right or fundamental freedom of the child protected under Part II of the Children Act has been denied, violated, infringed or is threatened. Enforcement of the rights of children, protected under the Children Act, is through the High Court, by virtue of Section 29(3) of the Children Act, and, it would appear, applications founded on Section 29 (1) of the Children Act are to be filed at the High Court, and disposed of in the manner contemplated under Section 29 (3) of the Act.
7. Case law points to the High Court handling disputes on paternity, in children’s matters in such cases as ANM vs. FPA (suing as the father and next friend of the minor) [2021] eKLR Odunga, J), DB vs. JK [2024] KEHC 12796 (KLR) (Ominde, J), FKW (suing as the mother and next friend of GDW (minor) vs. DMM [2015] eKLR (Ngaah, J), MW vs. KC [2005] KEHC 3172 (KLR) (GBM Kariuki, J), MKK vs. LGI [2021] eKLR (PJO, Otieno J) and PC vs. JMZ [2020] eKLR (Nyakundi, J).
8. I am satisfied that the High Court does have jurisdiction in the matter. In that behalf, let the Motion, dated 7th May 2025, be canvassed by way of written submissions, to be filed and exchanged in seven days. I shall mention the matter on 10th June 2025 to receive the submissions and allocate a date for ruling. Let the respondent be served with these directions, and a mention notice for 10th June 2025.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT BUSIA ON THIS 28THDAY OF MAY 2025. WM MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Arthur Etyang, Court Assistant.AdvocatesMs. Gladys Muinde, instructed by Kinoti Kimathi & Company, Advocates for the petitioner.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.