[2020] KEHC 9995 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 9995 (KLR)

The court held that since the appeal arose from an interlocutory order and the main suit regarding custody was still pending before the trial court, it would be inappropriate to determine which party should have custody at this stage. The appellate court emphasized the need to avoid preempting the outcome of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 9995 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: HKM; Respondent: BKC
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
5 May 2020
Case Number
Civil Appeal 21 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; status quo to be maintained; each party to bear own costs.
Judges
M Thande
Legal Topics
Child Custody, Best Interests of Child, Interlocutory Orders, Status Quo Orders
Source Language
english
Family and Children Child Custody Best Interests of Child Interlocutory Orders Status Quo Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKM

Appellant

BKC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in declining to review the custody orders and maintaining status quo regarding the children.
  2. 2 Whether the principle that children of tender years should be with their mother was properly applied.
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances existed to deny the mother custody of the children.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that since the appeal arose from an interlocutory order and the main suit regarding custody was still pending before the trial court, it would be inappropriate to determine which party should have custody at this stage. The appellate court emphasized the need to avoid preempting the outcome of the main proceedings. The court reaffirmed the importance of the best interests of the children and the prejudice caused by delay in resolving custody matters. Accordingly, the court directed that the status quo, as set out in the consent order of 9.5.19 (granting the Appellant actual physical custody and the Respondent access), be maintained pending the determination of the main...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; status quo to be maintained; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • Status quo as per the consent order of 9.5.19 to be maintained pending determination of Tononoka Children’s Case No. 390 of 2016.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.