[2015] KEHC 7256 (KLR)
The court determined that, given the high cost of healthcare in Kenya and the respondent's shared responsibility towards the applicant and the child, a reasonable compromise was to order the respondent to provide an out-patient medical cover of Kshs. 50,000 and an in-patient cover of Kshs. 750,000 for both the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 7256 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: R W K; Respondent: A M A
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 96 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Medical Cover Pending Divorce Proceedings
- Outcome
- Application partially allowed; medical cover ordered as specified.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule, DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Medical Cover Obligations, Child Welfare, Spousal Support
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
R W K
Applicant
A M A
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Medical Cover Pending Divorce Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 What constitutes a reasonable medical cover for the applicant and the child in the context of ongoing divorce proceedings.
- 2 Whether the respondent's financial responsibilities extend to providing enhanced medical cover for the applicant and the child.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that, given the high cost of healthcare in Kenya and the respondent's shared responsibility towards the applicant and the child, a reasonable compromise was to order the respondent to provide an out-patient medical cover of Kshs. 50,000 and an in-patient cover of Kshs. 750,000 for both the applicant and the child. This amount balances the needs of the applicant and the child with the respondent's financial obligations, especially considering he has another family. The court declined to award costs, emphasizing the welfare of the child and the need for fairness in family disputes.
Court Disposition
Application partially allowed; medical cover ordered as specified.
Orders
- The respondent shall provide to the applicant and the child an out-patient medical cover of Kshs. 50,000 and an in-patient cover of Kshs. 750,000 for both.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
HCCA NO. 96 OF 2012
R W K.............................APPLICANT
VERSUS
A M A..........................RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicant and the respondent were unable to agree on what would be a reasonable medical cover for the former and their child K.N. The parties have divorce proceedings before the Kadhi’s court following a successful appeal by the applicant.
The court ordered the parties to negotiate and reach a settlement on the issue. They sat and talked but they could not agree. The respondent offered a medical cover of out-patient of Kshs. 20,000 for the applicant and the child, and in-patient cover of Kshs. 200,000 for the applicant and Kshs. 500,000 for the child. The applicant sought an out- Patients cover of Kshs. 50,000 for both and in-patient cover of Kshs. 1. 5 million for both. The parties addressed the court on these proposals.
There is no dispute that the respondent has another family. He is a captain with [particulars withheld]. I consider that he has a shared responsibility with the applicant. I take judicial notice of the fact that it is quite expensive to be sick in this country.
Considering all the facts of the case, I order that the respondent provides to the applicant and the child an out-patient cover of Kshs. 50,000 and an in-patient cover of Kshs. 750,000 for both. I make no order as to costs.
DATED at NAIROBI this 29th day of April 2015
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE
DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 30th day of April 2015
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE