[2017] KEHC 7273 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 7273 (KLR)

The court found that the multiplicity of applications by the Appellant constituted an abuse of court process. The Appellant's refusal to undergo DNA testing meant that, in the absence of contrary evidence, he would be treated as the father and required to provide for the child. The court balanced the Appellant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 7273 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: C M M; Respondent: E N K
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
13 February 2017
Case Number
Appeal 5 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications for Stay of Execution and Related Reliefs Pending Appeal
Outcome
Applications of 27th September 2016 and 22nd November 2016 compromised; ex parte orders of 13th December 2016 vacated; Trial Court orders of 8th December 2015 upheld with modifications; appeal pending.
Legal Topics
Child Maintenance, Parental Responsibility, Stay of Execution, Best Interests of Child
Source Language
english
Family and Children Civil Procedure Child Maintenance Parental Responsibility Stay of Execution Best Interests of Child

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C M M

Appellant

E N K

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications for Stay of Execution and Related Reliefs Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applications for stay of execution and related reliefs should be upheld, compromised or dismissed.
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant is the biological father of the minor child and should exercise parental responsibility.
  3. 3 Whether the ex parte orders of 13th December 2016 should be vacated and set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the multiplicity of applications by the Appellant constituted an abuse of court process. The Appellant's refusal to undergo DNA testing meant that, in the absence of contrary evidence, he would be treated as the father and required to provide for the child. The court balanced the Appellant's constitutional rights to freedom of religion and privacy with the child's constitutional right to parental care and best interests. The ex parte orders of 13th December 2016 were vacated, and the Trial Court's orders for maintenance and educational support were upheld, with the Respondent also required to contribute to the child's basic needs. The deposited funds were ordered to...

Court Disposition

Applications of 27th September 2016 and 22nd November 2016 compromised; ex parte orders of 13th December 2016 vacated; Trial Court orders of 8th December 2015 upheld with modifications; appeal pending.

Orders

  • Trial Court orders of 8th December 2015 upheld, with Respondent to provide food, shelter, and clothing, and Appellant to provide school fees, school expenses, medical care, and Ksh 17,000 monthly maintenance.
  • Appellant at liberty to seek visitation and access rights to the child.