[2021] KEHC 13216 (KLR)
The court has not made a final determination on the substantive application for guardianship. Instead, it has directed counsel to address the issue of the court's jurisdiction to hear and determine the originating summons and the related application, in light of the relevant statutory provisions and rules. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 13216 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: MWM; Respondent: CAD
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 89 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Directions on Jurisdiction Prior to Hearing Substantive Application
- Outcome
- Directions issued; parties to address the court on the issue of jurisdiction before substantive hearing.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Guardianship, Custody of Children, Jurisdiction of Family Court
- 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
MWM
Applicant
CAD
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Directions on Jurisdiction Prior to Hearing Substantive Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the High Court have jurisdiction to hear and determine the originating summons for guardianship under the Children Act and relevant rules?
- 2 Are the requirements of rule 2 of the Guardianship of Children (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2002 and sections 73 and 102 of the Children Act satisfied in this matter?
Ratio Decidendi
The court has not made a final determination on the substantive application for guardianship. Instead, it has directed counsel to address the issue of the court's jurisdiction to hear and determine the originating summons and the related application, in light of the relevant statutory provisions and rules. The court's reasoning is that jurisdiction is a threshold issue that must be resolved before any substantive orders can be made in guardianship and custody matters under the Children Act.
Court Disposition
Directions issued; parties to address the court on the issue of jurisdiction before substantive hearing.
Orders
- Counsel for the parties to address the court on the issue of its jurisdiction to hear and determine the originating summons and the application, with reference to rule 2 of the Guardianship of Children (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2002 and sections 73 and 102 of the Children Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
MISC. APPL. NO. 89 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP AND CUSTODY OF RJ – LD (CHILD)
MWM.......................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
CAD.....................................RESPONDENT
DIRECTIONS
1. I have looked at the originating summons dated 27th May 2019 which is the basis of all the subsequent applications. The originating summons was brought under rule 3 of the Guardianship of Children (Practice and procedure) Rules, 2002 made under the Children Act, No. 8 of 2001. The substantial prayer in the originating summons was the guardianship of RJ-LD., the child of the applicant (MWM) and the respondent (CAD)
2. Before I consider the application by the applicant dated 10th March 2021, I ask counsel to address the court on the issue of its jurisdiction to hear and determine the originating summons and the application. This is in view of rule 2 of the Rules and sections 73 and 102 of theChildren Act.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2021.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE