[2025] KEHC 5232 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 5232 (KLR)

The court found that the affidavits supporting the petition were improperly commissioned, as they were sworn in the United States but purportedly commissioned in Nairobi without proper notarization, rendering them inadmissible. However, under the Mutunga Rules, a petition may proceed without supporting affidavits....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 5232 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: JAK; Respondent: SWW
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
8 April 2025
Case Number
Constitutional Petition E532 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Judges
AB Mwamuye
Legal Topics
Right to Family, Right to Dignity, Paternity Disputes, Admissibility of Affidavits, Bodily Integrity, Non Discrimination
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Family and Children Right to Family Right to Dignity Paternity Disputes Admissibility of Affidavits Bodily Integrity Non Discrimination

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 4 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JAK

Applicant

SWW

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition and accompanying notice of motion are fatally incompetent and defective due to improper commissioning of affidavits.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner has established a prima facie case to warrant an order for DNA testing against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the affidavits supporting the petition were improperly commissioned, as they were sworn in the United States but purportedly commissioned in Nairobi without proper notarization, rendering them inadmissible. However, under the Mutunga Rules, a petition may proceed without supporting affidavits. On the substantive issue, the court held that the petitioner, being an adult of 49 years, could not invoke Article 53 rights reserved for children. There was no sufficient evidence of a relationship between the petitioner and respondent, nor any explanation for the delay in seeking paternity determination. The court emphasized that compelling a non-consenting adult to undergo...

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition is hereby dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.