[2025] KEHC 10150 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 10150 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he made all the required maintenance payments for the period in question. While the respondent admitted to receiving some cash payments through intermediaries, she credibly denied receiving the full amounts, particularly from one intermediary. The appellant did not insist on receipts or acknowledgments for the cash payments, and his explanation for ceasing Mpesa payments was unconvincing given that he continued to receive his salary via Mpesa. The burden of proof rested on the appellant to demonstrate that all payments were made, and he did not discharge this burden. Consequently, the trial court's...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 10150 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Emmanuel Chula Mwaduna; Respondent: Mariam Nyaguthi Maina
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Garsen
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 July 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E019 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
JN Njagi
Legal Topics
Child Maintenance, Consent Orders, Burden of Proof, Oral Agreements, Enforcement of Judgments
Source Language
English
Family and Children Civil Procedure Child Maintenance Consent Orders Burden of Proof Oral Agreements Enforcement of Judgments

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmanuel Chula Mwaduna

Appellant

Mariam Nyaguthi Maina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant paid all the child maintenance remittances as required by the consent order except for November and December 2022.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in disregarding evidence of cash payments made by the appellant through intermediaries.
  3. 3 Whether the burden of proof was properly discharged regarding the alleged outstanding maintenance payments.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he made all the required maintenance payments for the period in question. While the respondent admitted to receiving some cash payments through intermediaries, she credibly denied receiving the full amounts, particularly from one intermediary. The appellant did not insist on receipts or acknowledgments for the cash payments, and his explanation for ceasing Mpesa payments was unconvincing given that he continued to receive his salary via Mpesa. The burden of proof rested on the appellant to demonstrate that all payments were made, and he did not discharge this burden. Consequently, the trial court's...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.