[2025] KEHC 8310 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 8310 (KLR)

The court held that the appellant failed to meet the legal threshold for varying a consent order, as there was no evidence of fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, or that the agreement was contrary to the policy of the court. The court emphasized that, in addition to these grounds, the best interests of the child must be considered in any application to vary a consent order relating to children. However, the appellant did not demonstrate that the proposed variation would enhance the child's interests. The trial court's finding that there was no evidence of non-compliance by the respondent and that reducing maintenance would not serve the child's best interests was upheld. The appeal was...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 8310 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: EGM; Respondent: VAO
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
13 June 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal 1 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
PM Nyaundi
Legal Topics
Child Custody, Child Maintenance, Variation of Consent Orders, Best Interests of Child
Source Language
English
Family and Children Child Custody Child Maintenance Variation of Consent Orders Best Interests of Child

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EGM

Appellant

VAO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant met the conditions for varying the consent agreement dated 22 March 2021 between the appellant and the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the learned magistrate was entitled to consider the profits of Randas Medical Services in determining the appellant's personal financial position and ability to cater for the minor.
  3. 3 Whether it was necessary to order the respondent to file her affidavit of means for purposes of determining the financial ability of both parties to provide for the minor.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant failed to meet the legal threshold for varying a consent order, as there was no evidence of fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, or that the agreement was contrary to the policy of the court. The court emphasized that, in addition to these grounds, the best interests of the child must be considered in any application to vary a consent order relating to children. However, the appellant did not demonstrate that the proposed variation would enhance the child's interests. The trial court's finding that there was no evidence of non-compliance by the respondent and that reducing maintenance would not serve the child's best interests was upheld. The appeal was...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.
  • Each party will bear their own costs.