[2025] KEHC 4201 (KLR)
The court found that the main issue was whether the applicant was given sufficient opportunity to comply with the trial court's orders before the warrant of arrest was issued. While the substantive directives of the trial court were clear, the applicant's claim of being ambushed by the orders warranted a temporary...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 4201 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: DB; Respondent: RZM
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Family Appeal E137 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Family Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- interlocutory stay of warrant of arrest granted for 14 days; applicant to comply with trial court orders within 14 days; costs in the cause
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Child Maintenance, Warrants of Arrest, Compliance With Court Orders
- 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
DB
Applicant
RZM
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Family Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was accorded an opportunity to comply with the trial court's orders before the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the warrant of arrest pending appeal.
- 3 Whether the applicant has complied with the maintenance orders issued by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the main issue was whether the applicant was given sufficient opportunity to comply with the trial court's orders before the warrant of arrest was issued. While the substantive directives of the trial court were clear, the applicant's claim of being ambushed by the orders warranted a temporary reprieve. The court therefore granted a stay of the warrant of arrest for 14 days, directing the applicant to comply with the orders within that period. The court emphasized that compliance with maintenance orders is mandatory and that the applicant must refund the specified amounts as directed by the trial court. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.
Court Disposition
interlocutory stay of warrant of arrest granted for 14 days; applicant to comply with trial court orders within 14 days; costs in the cause
Orders
- The applicant shall within 14 days from the date herein comply with the orders of the court dated 10th November 2023.
- Pending the above compliance, warrants of arrest are stayed for 14 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
DB v RZM (Family Appeal E137 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 4201 (KLR) (Family) (3 April 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 4201 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Family
Family Appeal E137 of 2023
HK Chemitei, J
April 3, 2025
Between
DB
Applicant
and
RZM
Respondent
Ruling
1. In his Notice of Motion dated 11th December 2023 the Applicant pray for orders:-(1)Spent(2)Spent(3)Spent(4)That prayer 2 and 3 be granted pending the hearing and determination of the appeal against the trials court’s decision of 10th November 2023. (5)Costs be provided for.
2. The application is supported by the Applicant’s sworn affidavit dated 11th December 2023.
3. The substance of the application is that the Respondent had obtained a warrant of arrest against the Applicant pursuant to the ruling of the court dated 10th November 2023 in which the Applicant had failed to honour the directives of the court to pay his part of the minor’s maintenance.
4. The affidavit has given a chronology of the children’s case including several applications which were filed post judgment It is his case that he was not accorded a chance to explain himself before the ruling was given.
5. He further denied that he was in violation of the orders and that he had honored the part which had directed him to pay. He therefore prayed for the warrants of arrest to be stayed pending this appeal.
6. On her part the Respondent vide her replying affidavit dated 29th April 2024 opposed the application arguing that the Applicant had failed to pay the amount which he was ordered and the court was therefore right in issuing the warrant of arrest against him.
7. That despite being granted an opportunity the Applicant has failed to refund her the sum of Kshs.60,000 which he had been directed to pay as well as the court execution charges.
Analysis And Determination 8. I have perused the available pleadings especially the rival affidavits as well as the written submissions by the parties. I have also read the ruling dated 10th November 2023 by the trial court.
9. I think save for the issue of whether the Applicant was granted time and opportunity to comply the rest of the directives are as clear as sunlight.
10. A good example is the directive by the court that the Applicant refunds the amount of Kshs.145,203 being fees paid by the Respondent which essentially was to be paid by the Applicant. The court in my understanding simply wanted the parties to do some simple accounting and thereafter refund each other as the case might be.
11. The other issues which were contained in the substantive judgement and which I do not think the Applicant is appealing against remains the same. A clear simple reading of the application is simply that the Applicant feels ambushed by the orders and directives from the trial court. In other words, he did not get proper notices when the ruling was being delivered.
12. Be it as it may I do not find the application one that the court should spend much energy and I direct that:-(a)The Applicant shall within 14 days from the date herein comply with the orders of the court dated 10th November 2023. (b)Meanwhile and pending the above compliance warrants of arrest are stayed for 14 days.(c)Costs in the cause.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 3RDDAY OF APRIL, 2025. H K CHEMITEIJUDGE