[2014] KEHC 8494 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 8494 (KLR)

The court found that there had been a significant lapse of time since the original maintenance order, during which the children had grown and their needs had increased. The court took judicial notice of inflation and the rising cost of living, concluding that the maintenance figure set in 2009 was no longer...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 8494 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: M B B; Respondent: M K H
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 26 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Variation of Maintenance Orders and Provision for Accommodation
Outcome
Application allowed in terms of prayers 1 and 2; maintenance and accommodation orders varied.
Judges
DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Child Maintenance, Variation of Orders, Parental Responsibility, Child Accommodation
Source Language
en
Family and Children Child Maintenance Variation of Orders Parental Responsibility Child Accommodation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M B B

Applicant

M K H

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Variation of Maintenance Orders and Provision for Accommodation

  1. 1 Whether the maintenance amount ordered in 2009 should be varied upwards due to changed circumstances and increased needs of the children.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should be ordered to contribute towards setting up a home for the appellant and the children.
  3. 3 How school fees, medical care, and other child-related expenses should be apportioned between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there had been a significant lapse of time since the original maintenance order, during which the children had grown and their needs had increased. The court took judicial notice of inflation and the rising cost of living, concluding that the maintenance figure set in 2009 was no longer adequate. The respondent's arguments regarding the applicant's income and the children's residence with their maternal grandparents were rejected, as the primary duty to provide for the children rests with both parents, particularly the father. The court determined that school fees and medical expenses should be shared equally, while the respondent should bear the full cost of other...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in terms of prayers 1 and 2; maintenance and accommodation orders varied.

Orders

  • The parties shall share the children’s school fees equally, with the respondent settling his share directly at the school.
  • The respondent shall meet all other school-related expenses of the children.