[2015] KEHC 5250 (KLR)
The court found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant review or variation of the judgment. The judgment was based on a consent reached by the parties before their religious community, which neither party had faulted. The court held that the respondent's compliance with the consent,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 5250 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: H. T. H; Respondent: F. S
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Divorce Cause 6 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce Cause / Ruling on Application for Stay, Review, or Variation of Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Child Custody, Access Rights, Divorce Decree, Review of Judgment
- 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
H. T. H
Applicant
F. S
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Ruling on Application for Stay, Review, or Variation of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review or variation of the judgment.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to stay of execution of the decree and/or variation of access or custody orders regarding the minor child.
- 3 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant review or variation of the judgment. The judgment was based on a consent reached by the parties before their religious community, which neither party had faulted. The court held that the respondent's compliance with the consent, including depositing an air ticket and a sum of money, did not amount to an intention to deport the applicant or deny her access to the child. The issue of custody had already been determined by the Children's Court and was subject to a pending appeal, making it inappropriate for the High Court to vary those orders. The court concluded that the application was an abuse of the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 3rd November, 2014 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT MALINDI
DIVORCE CAUSE NO. 6 OF 2012
H. T. H............................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
F. S...............................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The application dated 3rd November, 2014 seeks an order of stay of execution against the decree issued herein, review or setting aside or varying the judgment issued on 29th September, 2014 as well as directions on the access of the minor child by the Applicant. The application is supported by the Applicant's affidavit sworn on the same date. The Respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn on 11th November, 2014.
Parties agreed to determine the application by way of written submissions. It is the Applicant's submissions that the Respondent has deposited an air ticket for the Applicant to travel yo India. If that part of the judgment is effected, the Applicant will be denied access of her son. The Applicant was given unlimited access of her son in Malindi children Case Umber 53 of 2010. The Applicant is likely to be deported to India. The Applicant only sought custody of his son and Kshs. 1 million being the equivalent of gold given tot he Respondent's family during the marriage.
According to Counsel for the Applicant, the error apparent on the face of the judgment which the Applicant is seeking to have reviewed is the fact that the court failed to give a mechanism through which the Applicant would access her son while in India. This error can be rectified by the court directing that the Applicant be given custody of the child whenever she wishes so that she can leave the country with her child. The Respondent will not be prejudiced as he is a man of means.
Counsel for the Respondent filed written submissions indicating that the depositing of the air ticket was as a result of the Applicant's request. The child has already indicated that he does not wish to go to India.
I have gone through the judgment of Justice Meoli delivered on 29th September, 2014, I have also gone through the submissions by Counsel for both parties, the application dated 3rd November, 2014 as well as all the pleadings and documents related to this dispute. The background of the matter shows that the parties were granted a divorce.
The judgment of Justice Meoli was preceded by a consent of the parties before their religious community. Parties agreed to the effect that the Respondent deposits an air ticket in favour of the Applicant to travel to India as well as a sum of 3000 U.S. Dollars. By complying with that consent, the Respondent cannot be held to be intending to deport the Applicant. Further it does not mean that once the Applicant travels to India she cannot come back to Kenya to visit her child.
The issue of custody of the child was dealt with by the Malindi Children's Court. There is an appeal which is pending. The Applicant has not been allowed to take the child out of the country and should not urge the court to vary the judgment therein by allowing her to travel with the child.
I do find that the current application is an abuse of the court process. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. For the short time I have been here at the Malindi Law Courts, I have dealt with the same dispute by the parties brought in different forms. The Applicant and her advocate should understand that making frivolous applications like the current one to the court will not help them. If the Applicant is dissatisfied with the judgment of Justice Meoli, she can proceed to appeal. The judgment in real sense adopted the consent before the parties' religious community. The judgment noted that none of the parties faulted the consent. The application is simply an outright abuse of the court process. The judgment of Justice Meoli did not dwell on the issue of custody. How can it be varied or set aside so that custody can be granted to the Applicant.
The Applicant is entitled to pursue her rights in court. However, she should exercise that right prudently as opposed to throwing unnecessary applications to the court. Counsel for the Applicant should be bold enough and advice his client on the proper way forward. If the Applicant was granted unlimited access of the child by the Lower Court as per the Applicant's written submissions, why then would the party come to the court and raise custody issues. Has access been denied by the Respondent?
In the end, I do find that the application dated 3rd November, 2014 lacks merit and the same is dismissed with costs.
Dated and delivered at Malindi this 26th day of February, 2015.
Said J. Chitembwe
JUDGE