[2011] KEHC 3329 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 3329 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent failed to provide credible or sufficient evidence to support his claim of financial incapacity. The court determined that the respondent's business had not deteriorated to the extent claimed and that it was improbable he was completely unable to pay the ordered maintenance. The respondent had not shown good faith by making any partial payments or demonstrating genuine efforts to comply with the maintenance order. The court concluded that the application was made solely to avoid payment of maintenance and lacked merit. Accordingly, the application to stay or vary the maintenance order was dismissed with costs to the petitioner.

Citation
[2011] KEHC 3329 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: E.A.P.H; Respondent: P.A.H
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 March 2011
Case Number
Divorce Cause 128 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Ruling on Application to Stay/vary Maintenance Order
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the petitioner
Judges
LK Kimaru
Legal Topics
Spousal Maintenance, Variation of Orders, Enforcement of Maintenance, Financial Circumstances, Arrears of Maintenance
Source Language
English
Family and Children Spousal Maintenance Variation of Orders Enforcement of Maintenance Financial Circumstances Arrears of Maintenance

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E.A.P.H

Petitioner

P.A.H

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Cause / Ruling on Application to Stay/vary Maintenance Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has demonstrated sufficient grounds for the court to stay or vary the maintenance order issued on 23rd March 2006.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's alleged financial hardship justifies suspension of the maintenance payments.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has acted in good faith in seeking suspension of the maintenance order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to provide credible or sufficient evidence to support his claim of financial incapacity. The court determined that the respondent's business had not deteriorated to the extent claimed and that it was improbable he was completely unable to pay the ordered maintenance. The respondent had not shown good faith by making any partial payments or demonstrating genuine efforts to comply with the maintenance order. The court concluded that the application was made solely to avoid payment of maintenance and lacked merit. Accordingly, the application to stay or vary the maintenance order was dismissed with costs to the petitioner.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the petitioner

Orders

  • The application to stay or vary the maintenance order is dismissed.
  • The respondent shall pay the costs of this application to the petitioner.