[2015] KEHC 4281 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any material change in circumstances since the judgment increasing the maintenance sum. The applicant's status as a student and his previous payment of KShs.5,500 per month were considered, but the court held that these factors were already known at the time...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 4281 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: G W H; Respondent: G R D
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 6 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Variation of Maintenance Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for variation of maintenance dismissed; interim orders not varied.
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Child Maintenance, Custody Orders, Variation of Maintenance, Parental Responsibility
- 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
G W H
Applicant
G R D
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Variation of Maintenance Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant a reduction of the maintenance sum ordered by the magistrate court.
- 2 Whether the court should stay or vary the maintenance order pending the hearing of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any material change in circumstances since the judgment increasing the maintenance sum. The applicant's status as a student and his previous payment of KShs.5,500 per month were considered, but the court held that these factors were already known at the time of the original order. The applicant did not provide new evidence or justification for a further reduction. The court emphasized the joint parental responsibility for child maintenance and declined to vary the order, directing the applicant to continue paying as previously ordered pending the inter partes hearing of the application or appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for variation of maintenance dismissed; interim orders not varied.
Orders
- The application to reduce the maintenance sum is declined.
- The applicant must continue paying the maintenance sum as previously ordered pending the hearing of the application inter partes.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2015
G W H ……………..…………… APPLICANT
VS
G R D…………….……..………RESPONDENT
RULING
By the notice of motion dated 12/2/2015, the Appellant, G W H seek the following orders:
1. That the court be pleased to stay the orders of Hon. T. M. Wafula, Resident Magistrate issued on 20/2/2015 pending the hearing of the appeal;
2. That the court be pleased to readjust the maintenance of figures to a monthly sum of KShs.4, 000. 00 to be deposited into the Respondent’s bank account.
The Applicant has appealed against the decision of the Resident Magistrate, Marsabit, whereby the Respondent sued the Applicant for custody and maintenance of their two issues of the marriage between the Applicant and Respondent. The court, by a judgment delivered on 20/1/2015, ordered the Applicant to pay KShs.8, 000. 00 per month to the Respondent for maintenance of the children. This was an increase from the interim order of Kshs.5, 000. 00 which was subsisting before the judgment. The Applicant has appealed against the orders of the court and came to this court ex-parte, under certificate of urgency on 13/2/2015 and this court granted an interim order staying the order of the magistrate on maintenance and allowed the Applicant to continue paying kShs.5, 500. 00 per month which he had been paying before.
Before the application could be heard by Court 2, the Applicant asked the court to have the sum of KShs.5, 500. 00 reviewed downwards. Although both parties were before Court No. 2 at the time, the file was referred back to this court for review of this court’s order, neither the Respondent nor her Counsel were present before this Court on 2/6/2015.
I have considered what the Applicant told the court. It is the same submission he made before the court when he appeared before me ex-parteunder certificate of urgency. The reasons are that he is still a student at the university and is unable to pay the sums. The Applicant has not demonstrated what has changed from the time the judgment was delivered. He used to pay the said sum before. He has a joint responsibility with the Respondent to maintain their children and I find no good grounds as to why the court should reduce the sum further even after judgment. The court will not vary its order at this stage and will direct that the Applicant must find ways of raising the said sums pending the hearing of his application inter parties. Having declined to vary the order, this file is sent back to court 2 for hearing of the application or the appeal as the court may direct.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ON 26THDAY OF JUNE, 2015.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
PRESENT:
Applicant in Person
Court Assistants, Faith/Ibrahim