[2021] KEHC 12755 (KLR)
The court found that the existence of two separate committal orders for the child in 2014, with no evidence that the first order was revoked and no satisfactory explanation provided for the issuance of the second order, created a legal ambiguity regarding the child's status and eligibility for adoption. The lack of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 12755 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: CWM
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Adoption Cause 64 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Adoption Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- adoption application refused
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Adoption Procedure, Committal Orders, Child Protection
- 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
CWM
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Adoption Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the existence of two separate committal orders for the child renders the child eligible for adoption.
- 2 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the issuance of two committal orders in 2014.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the existence of two separate committal orders for the child in 2014, with no evidence that the first order was revoked and no satisfactory explanation provided for the issuance of the second order, created a legal ambiguity regarding the child's status and eligibility for adoption. The lack of clarification from both the Children Court and the Children Officer on why two orders were necessary, and the inconsistency in the child's stated age in the orders, led the court to conclude that the adoption could not be allowed. The court emphasized the necessity for clear and lawful procedures to be followed in adoption matters to protect the best interests of the child and...
Court Disposition
adoption application refused
Orders
- The adoption application is refused.
- The Director of Children Services is directed to collect the child from the applicant and deal with the matter in accordance with the law.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
ADOPTION CAUSE NO. 64 OF 2018 (OS)
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT, 2001
AND
IN THE MATTER OF BABY B aka BABY MIM.
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR ADOPTION
BY
CWM........................................................................APPLICANT
JUDGMENT
1. On 28th October 29014 the Eldoret Children Court vide Protection and Care Case No. [….]committed Baby B to Lewa Children’s Home for a period of three (3) years. On 18th December 2014 Baby B was further committed to St. Thomas Barnados Children’s Home for three (3) years vide Protection and Care Case No. [….].
2. This court on 14th November 2019 delivered its judgment in which it directed the applicant to give a satisfactory explanation on the existence of the two committal orders. The court observed as follows:-
“There is no evidence that the order in Protection and Care Case No. [….] was revoked, and therefore the child was not available to be committed in the second order.”
3. There has been no explanation, either by the Children Court or by the Children Officer, why the two committal orders became necessary. One committal order indicated the child was one year while the other indicated the child was 3 years. They were both issued in 2014.
4. I consequently will not allow this adoption. I direct the Director of Children Services to collect the child the applicant is having and deal with the matter in accordance with the law.
DATED and SIGNED at NAIROBI this 25TH day of MARCH 2021.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE