Kenya Judgment

High Court · High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)

In re A B M [2017] KEHC 4229 (KLR)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court declined to grant interim custody, care, and control of the minor to Y T at this stage, holding that the substantive issue of joint guardianship must be determined at the full hearing of the Originating Summons. The court found that the female applicant, H N N, had already been appointed legal guardian by a prior adoption order, which took effect upon the death of the adoptive mother. Therefore, custody, care, and control of the child should remain with the legal guardian appointed in Adoption Cause No. 220 of 2012 until further orders. The court also directed the Director of Children Services to investigate the suitability of the male applicant as a potential legal guardian and to file a report within forty-five days, after which the main suit would be set down for hearing as a priority.

Court disposition

Interim custody, care, and control of the minor to remain with the legal guardian appointed in Adoption Cause No. 220 of 2012; application for interim joint guardianship declined; investigation into male applicant's suitability ordered.

Orders

  • Custody, care, and control of the child to remain with the legal guardian appointed in Adoption Cause No. 220 of 2012 until further orders.
  • Director of Children Services to investigate the male applicant's suitability as legal guardian and file a report within forty-five (45) days.
  • Originating Summons to be allocated a hearing date as a matter of priority.

02

Material facts

Parties

Y T

Applicant

H N N

Applicant

A B M (minor)

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Interim Guardianship and Custody Orders

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants argued that following the death of the adoptive mother, they should be appointed joint guardians of the minor. The male applicant contended that he had cohabited with the adoptive mother and was finalizing the home where the child lived, while the female applicant had moved in to care for the child. They sought interim orders for custody, care, and control of the minor, specifically in favour of Y T.
Respondent
No formal respondent appeared, but the court considered the legal position arising from the prior adoption proceedings. The documents in Adoption Cause No. 220 of 2012 indicated that the male applicant was not a joint adopter and was depicted as separated from the adoptive mother at the time of adoption. The court also noted the prior appointment of the female applicant as legal guardian in the event of the adoptive mother’s death.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    General principles of family law and procedure

    Interim guardianship and custody orders should not be granted where substantive appointment is the primary issue for determination at the main hearing.

  2. 02

    Judgment and adoption order in Adoption Cause No. 220 of 2012

    A prior court order appointing a legal guardian upon the death of an adoptive parent takes effect immediately upon such death.

  3. 03

    Children Act, Section 4

    The welfare and best interests of the child are paramount in guardianship and custody matters.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court declined to grant interim custody, care, and control of the minor to Y T at this stage, holding that the substantive issue of joint guardianship must be determined at the full hearing of the Originating Summons. The court found that the female applicant, H N N, had already been appointed legal guardian by a prior adoption order, which took effect upon the death of the adoptive mother. Therefore, custody, care, and control of the child should remain with the legal guardian appointed in Adoption Cause No. 220 of 2012 until further orders. The court also directed the Director of Children Services to investigate the suitability of the male applicant as a potential legal guardian and to file a report within forty-five days, after which the main suit would be set down for hearing as a priority.

Obiter and limits

  • The male applicant's account of his relationship with the adoptive mother is inconsistent with the adoption proceedings' records.
  • The appointment of joint guardians can only be addressed at the full hearing, not at the interlocutory stage.

Court disposition

Interim custody, care, and control of the minor to remain with the legal guardian appointed in Adoption Cause No. 220 of 2012; application for interim joint guardianship declined; investigation into male applicant's suitability ordered.

  • Custody, care, and control of the child to remain with the legal guardian appointed in Adoption Cause No. 220 of 2012 until further orders.
  • Director of Children Services to investigate the male applicant's suitability as legal guardian and file a report within forty-five (45) days.
  • Originating Summons to be allocated a hearing date as a matter of priority.

Source and reliance status

High Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court

Judgment

[2017] KEHC 4229 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 58 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP AND CUSTODY OF A B M BY Y T AND H N N

RULING

1. The suit herein commenced by way of an Originating Summons dated 20th April 2017, where the applicants, Y T and H N N, seek guardianship orders in respect of A B M (a minor) following the death of her adoptive mother, R M N, on 12th April 2016.

2. Filed simultaneously with the Originating Summons is a summons in chambers of even date, where the applicants invite them to appoint them joint guardians of the child, with an additional prayer that the child remains in the custody, care and control of Y T.

3. The interlocutory application was argued orally on 18th May 2017. I was informed that the male applicant had been cohabiting with the adoptive mother of the child prior to her death, and was in the process of finalizing the home where the child lived with the deceased. I was further told that the female applicant had moved into the home of the male applicant so as to take care of the child.

4. Let me start by stating in the outset that the first prayer in the chamber summons is not available at this stage. It is also the primary prayer in the Originating Summons. The question of the appointment of the applicants as joint guardians of the child can only be addressed at the full hearing of the main suit.

5. On the second prayer, I do note that the court in Adoption Cause No. 220 of 2012 appointed the female applicant, in a judgment delivered in that cause, legal guardian of the child in the event of death of the adoptive mother. That appointment is encapsulated in the judgment delivered in the adoption cause on 20th June 2014 and the adoption order extracted therefrom on 23rd December 2014.

6. I am told that the adoptive mother died on 13th April 2016, a death certificate serial number [particulars withheld] is even attached to the application as an exhibit. That they means that the order in the adoption cause appointing the female applicant herein legal guardian of the child kicked in and she should have taken over custody, care and control of the subject child effective from 13th April 2016.

7. It would appear that the male applicant grounds his prayer for care, control and custody on the basis that he and the adoptive mother of the child had been married and lived together with the child. The picture painted in his papers does not appear to be in sync with the contents of the documents lodged in Adoption Cause No. 220 of 2012. In the instant cause the male applicant appears to say that he did not apply jointly with the deceased for adoption of the minor on the grounds that Japan did not have an adoptive relationship with Kenya then. In the adoption proceedings the male applicant and the adoptive mother were said to be separated and living apart and the male applicant was not depicted as a person who was really privy to the adoption process.

8. Taking everything into account, I am reluctant to grant interim custody of the subject female child to Y T at this stage. Custody, care and control of the child shall remain with the legal guardian appointed in Adoption Cause No. 220 of 2012 until further orders.

9. In the meantime, the Director of Children Services is hereby directed to investigate the male applicant herein to assess his suitability as legal guardian. The Director shall file his report within forty-five (45) days. The Originating Summons herein shall thereafter be allocated a hearing date as a matter of priority

DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2017.

W. MUSYOKA

JUDGE

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Adoption Cause No. 220 of 2012

Case cited

Children Act, Section 4

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.