https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6462

OAR v KDW (Civil Appeal E032 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 6462 (KLR) (Civ) (11 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6462 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Isiolo Civil Civil Appeal E032 of 2025 SC Chirchir, J May 11, 2026 Between OAR Appellant and KDW Respondent Ruling 1.What is coming up for determination is the Respondent’s Application dated 13/01/2026 (hereinafter:- “The Applicant” for purposes of this Ruling). She seeks that, the Court orders for the attachment of the Respondent’s salary to meet the costs of the children’s maintenance, pursuant to the order of this Court made on 16 /10/2025. 2.It is the Applicant’s case that the Respondent has failed to comply with the payment of Ksh. 30,000/= monthly, that had been ordered by the court and which payments had since accrued arrears of Ksh. 90,000/=. She further states that she has rented a house for the children at a monthly rent of Ksh. 20,000/= and has paid Ksh. 10,000 as school fees for one of the children. She states that the fees for the other two children remain unpaid. 3.Through the Respondent’s Replying Affidavit sworn on 29/01/2026, the Respondent denies the allegation. He states that he has so far paid Ksh. 67,500 on Account of school fees and Madrassa fees. He has attached a payment receipt for Ksh. 30,000 from [Particulars Withheld] Preparatory School dated 12/01/26, another from the same school dated 21/10/25 for Ksh. 37,500 and a receipt for purchase of food items from Mashaalah shop for Ksh. 14,700 dated 26/10/2025. 4.He further states that he has been taking care of the treatment costs of the minors, and has attached treatment chits for 17/12/25 from Almas Medical Services for child A.O and another dated 12/12/25 in respect of child H.O from the same hospital. He also states that he has supported the children in other areas aside of the amount ordered by the Court, and which the Applicant has failed to disclose. The Respondent further argues that there is no evidence of any outstanding fee balance. 5.The Court directed the Application to be heard by way of Written Submissions. 6.It is the Applicant’s submissions that pursuant to Article 53 (1) of the Constitution parental responsibility is a shared responsibility. It is further submitted that the Respondent’s failure to comply is a violation of the principle of the best interest of the child and finally that it is the duty of every person to comply with orders of the court. 7.The Respondent’s written Submissions bears no signature and hence stand unauthenticated. In the circumstances, they are not considered for purposes of this Ruling. Determination 8.On 16th October 2025, the parties herein entered into a consent in court, I n which they agreed that pending Appeal, the Appellant will continue to maintain the children by paying Ksh. 30,000/= every month. The Ksh 30,000 was inclusive of school fees, school related expenses and Madrassa fees. 9.Further the Court ordered the Applicant to cater for housing, medical clothing and any other expenses for the children as per the order that had been made by the trial court. 10.According to the Applicant, the respondent has failed to remit the costs of maintenance and is now in arrears of Ksh. 90,000. In response the Respondent states that he has paid school fees, that there is no evidence of any arrears, in any event. 11.I have studied the annexures submitted by both parties. The Applicant has attached an Mpesa message showing that she sent Ksh. 10,000 to [Particulars Withheld] Preparatory School for child A on 01/07/2026. She has also submitted two receipts from Isiolo Uniform Centre for purchase of school Uniforms. 12.In terms of the consent, the school fees and school related items was the responsibility of the Respondent. The Respondent has attached receipts showing that he paid Ksh. 37, 500 on 21/10/25 to the school and 30,000/= on 12/01/26. The receipt of 12/01/26 is however not signed and therefore its authenticity cannot be ascertained. The Respondent has further attached some treatment chits showing that some of the children underwent treatment on 12/12/25 and 17/12/25 at Almas Medical Services. 13.Whereas the Respondent cannot be faulted for the payment of Ksh. 37,500 and treatment of children, I consider the move diversionary. The Court Order was unambiguous; - the Respondent was only required to pay Ksh, 30,000 inclusive of school fees and school related expenses, to the Applicant. The Respondent’s attempts to meet “other costs” while failing to comply with the express terms of consent borders on mischief. A simple and straightforward remittances of Ksh 30,000 would have made the present Application unnecessary. There is also no evidence that the Respondent has paid any fees since the current Academic year began, and he is therefore in default. 14.The Respondent’s offer to now start paying Ksh. 30,000 is belated and meant to avoid the consequences of his disobedience. 15.It is the duty of the Court to protect rights, including the rights of children, and in carrying out the duty owed to children, it is guided by the constitutional imperative that the best interest of the child is of paramount consideration (See Article 53 (2) of the Constitution). Thus, in the circumstances of this case, and the Respondent’s attempt to evade his parental responsibility, the orders sought are warranted. 16.Further, in view of the fact school fees and attendant costs cannot be held in abeyance, the Notice to shows cause to the Respondent is hereby done away with in terms of Order 22 Rule 18(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. 17.Final orders:a.The County Government of Isiolo is hereby directed to deduct Ksh. 30,000 every month from the salary of Omar Adan Racha and remit the amount to Kabale Doti Wako through an Mpesa number to be provided by the Applicantb.The above payment is to be deducted to cover the arrears of Ksh. 52,500 as at the time of filing the Application, and continued maintenance.c.Each party to meet their own costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ISIOLO, THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.S. CHIRCHIRJUDGEIn the presence of:-Roba Kalelo-Court Assistant.Ms Mohammed for the ApplicantMr. Jarso for the Respondent.