https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10463

In re WK (Adoption Cause E051 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 10463 (KLR) (Family) (9 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10463 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Adoption Cause E051 of 2022 HK Chemitei, J July 9, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTION OF WK AND In the matter of MA Applicant Ruling 1.The Applicant’s application dated 21st August 2025 seeks the following orders:(a)That the Court be pleased to review, vary and or set aside it’s judgement issued on 16th December 2022 which dismissed the Applicant’s adoption application.(b)That in the alternative to prayer (a) the Court be pleased to revisit the matter and make such orders as are necessary to formalize the adoption of WK by the Applicant MA.(c)That this Court be pleased to grant an adoption order in favour of the Applicant Margret Aluda for the subject child WK. 2.The application is based on the sworn affidavit by the Applicant dated the same date as well as the grounds thereof. 3.The Applicant applied to adopt the minor herein then and after a long and winding proceedings the Court on 16th December 2022 delivered a judgement disallowing the application on the grounds that the child had come of age as he was over 18 years. 4.The application before Court seeks to review the said orders of dismissal and I have perused the supporting affidavit extensively. 5.What is apparent is that the child attained the age of majority while the legal processes were ongoing. It is her case that it was not the fault of the Applicant that the legal processes caused the application to be disallowed. 6.In a nutshell I find the reasons by the Applicant was merited. The Court (Odero J) disallowed the same for that simple reason. 7.The grounds for review are clear and notorious. Order 45 rules 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows:“Any person considering himself aggrieved—(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.” 8.Looking at the grounds laid down above it is clear that there is no appeal which was preferred by the Applicant. 9.But is there a new and important matter or evidence which has been discovered and brought forward by the Applicant which was not within the Applicant’s knowledge? 10.I do not respectfully find. The Court records speak for itself. For example, in the argument that there was delay because the Court ordered splitting of the two adoption petitions, I think the Court was alive to the same and therefore not new evidence. 11.As a matter of fact, no new material has been placed before me that was not available to the Court. The paper trail which was prepared in favour of the minor then are still available and therefore nothing has been introduced to me which is new. 12.Neither to I agree with the Applicant’s submissions that there was an error or mistake on the face of record. This Court may not explain the delay in determination of the application but the bottom line is that the Court was fully sized. 13.The other ground raised by the above cited rules speak of the application being made without undue delay. I do not find the period taken by the Applicant of about three years to be what the framers of the rules anticipated. 14.Considering the gravity of the matter at hand and the fact that the judgement had disallowed her application I find it imprudent to have brought this application three years or thereabouts later. The delay is inordinate and the reasons of blaming her counsel not plausible. 15.I find that perhaps the Applicant ought to have pursued and appeal in the circumstances. 16.As to the disadvantage the minor will endure and the lost opportunities because of the failure to be adopted, I find that this line of argument might be persuasive. However, the law precludes any adoption once the minor has attained the age of 18. 17.It is true the provisions of Article 53 (1) of the Constitution guarantees the rights of every child and in all circumstances the interest of the child stands paramount. 18.However, this speaks of a child who as per the definition under the Children’s Act is one who is below 18 years. Any other person who is above 18 years as in the case at hand fall under the other relevant portions of our laws. 19.Article 53 cannot therefore be read in isolation. Parliament provided the Children’s Act as well as the Adoption laws that gave life to Article 53. 20.By extension the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) cited by the Applicant in her submissions must be read with our domestic laws stated above. In my view there is no contradiction and it does not aid the Applicants’ application herein. 21.At the same time if parliament needed an extension beyond 18 years it would have clearly stated so. A parallel is drawn for instance in the support and maintenance of a child under the Children’s Act. The said child upon attaining the age of 18 is allowed to seek an extension to continue receiving the support he had when he was below 18 years. 22.By the above analogy the framers of the adoption laws would have extended the same to cases like the matter at hand. 23.I have extensively read the lengthy affidavit by the Applicant and although the child’s position merits sympathy it is also true that at age 22 which I believe he is now, the Applicant is able to support him by any means possible. 24.I think, I have stated much to show that this Court is unable to allow the application and, in the premises, I do disallow the same with no order as to costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIDE VIDEO LINK THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 2026.H K CHEMITEIJUDGE, FCIArb.