Kenya Judgment

High Court · High Court at Kericho

In re of T E E K (Baby) [2017] KEHC 868 (KLR)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the applicants fulfilled all statutory requirements for adoption under the Children Act, 2001. The child was lawfully declared free for adoption after being abandoned and unclaimed. The applicants demonstrated financial stability, a supportive home environment, and emotional readiness to care for the child. Reports from the Guardian ad Litem and the Children Officer confirmed the child had bonded well with the applicants and was thriving in their care. The court concluded that authorizing the adoption was in the best interests of the child, ensuring his welfare, stability, and integration into a loving family. The court also made consequential orders regarding the child's citizenship, renaming, registration, and appointment of legal guardians in the event of misfortune befalling the applicants.

Court disposition

adoption granted

Orders

  • The applicants, J K S and H C S, are authorised to adopt the child, T E alias E E K.
  • The child is declared a citizen of Kenya and his date of birth shall be 17th July 2012.
  • The child shall be renamed E E K.
  • The Registrar General is directed to make the appropriate entries in the Adopted Children Register.
  • The Registrar of Births and Deaths is directed to issue a birth certificate in respect of the child.
  • J K S and E C S are appointed legal guardians of the child should any misfortune befall the applicants.
  • The Guardian ad Litem is discharged.

02

Material facts

Parties

J K S

Applicant

H C S

Applicant

Amounts and remedies

  • Applicants' Net Monthly Salary: KES 37,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Adoption Cause / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants, a married couple, seek authorization to adopt a male child abandoned in Nakuru. They assert they have a stable marriage, sufficient financial means, and have bonded well with the child, who has been in their care since February 2014. They rely on positive reports from the Guardian ad Litem and the Children Officer, both recommending the adoption as being in the child's best interests.
Respondent
There is no formal respondent opposition. The Guardian ad Litem and the Children Officer both support the application, confirming the applicants' suitability and the child's welfare.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 4(2), Children Act, 2001

    The best interests of the child are paramount in adoption proceedings.

  2. 02

    Section 156(1), Children Act, 2001

    A child may be adopted if declared free for adoption by a registered adoption society.

  3. 03

    Section 158, Children Act, 2001

    The court must be satisfied as to the fitness of the applicants and the suitability of their home environment.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the applicants fulfilled all statutory requirements for adoption under the Children Act, 2001. The child was lawfully declared free for adoption after being abandoned and unclaimed. The applicants demonstrated financial stability, a supportive home environment, and emotional readiness to care for the child. Reports from the Guardian ad Litem and the Children Officer confirmed the child had bonded well with the applicants and was thriving in their care. The court concluded that authorizing the adoption was in the best interests of the child, ensuring his welfare, stability, and integration into a loving family. The court also made consequential orders regarding the child's citizenship, renaming, registration, and appointment of legal guardians in the event of misfortune befalling the applicants.

Obiter and limits

  • The applicants' commitment to the child's welfare is evident from the reports and their conduct since placement.
  • The legal process for adoption, including the declaration of the child as free for adoption, was properly followed.

Court disposition

adoption granted

  • The applicants, J K S and H C S, are authorised to adopt the child, T E alias E E K.
  • The child is declared a citizen of Kenya and his date of birth shall be 17th July 2012.
  • The child shall be renamed E E K.
  • The Registrar General is directed to make the appropriate entries in the Adopted Children Register.
  • The Registrar of Births and Deaths is directed to issue a birth certificate in respect of the child.
  • J K S and E C S are appointed legal guardians of the child should any misfortune befall the applicants.
  • The Guardian ad Litem is discharged.

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 868 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO

ADOPTION CAUSE NO.4 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF CHILDREN ACT (ACT NO.8 OF 2001)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF BABY T E E K (CHILD)

J K S………………………...1ST APPLICANT

H C S………………………...2ND APPLICANT

JUDGMENT

1. By their application dated 29th March 2017, the applicants, J K S and H C S pray to be authorised to adopt the male child currently identified and known as T E alias E E K.

2. The applicants are husband and wife. They were married on 12th December 1996 at the Africa Inland Church, Kimawit. The 1st applicant, J K S, is 50 years old. He was born in 1967. He works as a clerical officer with the [particulars withheld] in Bomet. The 2nd applicant, H C S, was born on 27th March 1974 and is now aged 43. She is a housewife.

3. The child the subject of this application is T E E E K. He is presumed born on 17th July 2012. He was found abandoned in Free Area, Nakuru, and taken to Nakuru Central Police Station. The matter was reported at the Nakuru Central Police Station and recorded as OB Number 81/17/12/12. The child was thereafter placed at the Africa Gospel Church Baby Centre to which he was committed by the Children Court, Nakuru, on 8th April 2013 vide Protection and Care Case No. 513 of 2013.

4. A letter from Nakuru Central Police Station dated 25th September 2013 indicates that since he was found abandoned and taken to the police station, no-one has ever gone to claim him. The child was therefore declared free for adoption by the Kenya Children’s Homes Adoption Society on 13th November 2013 and Freeing Certificate serial number [particulars withheld] issued in accordance with section 156 (1) of the Children Act 2001. He was placed with the applicants on 28th February 2014.

5. On 27th July 2017, this court appointed C K S the Guardian ad Litem in respect of the child. The Director, Children’s Services, was also directed to investigate and file a report on the fitness or otherwise of the applicants to adopt the child.

6. The Guardian ad Litem filed a report dated 3rd November 2017 in which he notes that the child is doing well in a healthy environment and has been mixing well with the rest of the applicants’ family. He has been taken to school, and all his needs are being met by the applicants.

7. In his very detailed report dated 15th September 2017, the sub-County Children Officer, Sotik, notes that the applicants have a stable marriage despite not having children. They have a home of their own at [particulars withheld]. The 1st applicant works as a senior clerical officer with NHIF and has a net salary of kshs.37,000/-. They own 4 acres of land on which they practice dairy and subsistence farming which the 2nd applicant is in charge of. They are active members of Kimawit AIC Church.

8. The Children Officer notes that the child has bonded well with the applicants. He attends [particulars withheld] Academy where he is doing well. The Children Officer further observes that the applicants are financially and emotionally stable and able to support the child. He recommends that they be allowed to adopt the child, as it is in his best interests.

9. Having considered the application, the affidavits in support and the reports filed by the Guardian ad Litem and the Children Officer, I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the child that the applicants are authorised to adopt him. From the available information, they have the financial means to take care of the child, and have a stable marriage and a home environment within which the child has fitted well.

10. Accordingly, I hereby authorise the applicants, J K S and H C S to adopt the child, T E alias E E K. The child is declared a citizen of Kenya and his date of birth shall be 17th July 2012. He shall be renamed E E K.

11. The Registrar General is directed to make the appropriate entries in the Adopted Children Register, and the Registrar of Births and Deaths is directed to issue a birth certificate in respect of the child.

12. I appoint J K S and E C S, the 1st applicant’s brother and sister-in –law respectively, as the legal guardians of the child should any misfortune befall the applicants.

13. The Guardian ad Litem is hereby discharged.

14. It is so ordered.

Dated, Delivered and Signed at Kericho this 1st day of December 2017

MUMBI NGUGI

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.

Children Act, 2001 (Act No. 8 of 2001)

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.