[2011] KEHC 4107 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 4107 (KLR)

The court found that the best interest of the child is the guiding principle in determining disputes concerning the child's education and maintenance. Although the child had stabilized emotionally and academically in the current school, the respondent demonstrated inability to pay the full fees, and the petitioner had not disclosed sufficient income to shoulder the entire burden. The court held that the parties should first attempt to agree on an affordable school within seven days. If no agreement is reached, the petitioner is to pay 25% and the respondent 75% of the current and outstanding school fees, reflecting a fair apportionment of responsibility in light of the parties'...

Citation
[2011] KEHC 4107 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: S.R.L; Respondent: R.S.L
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
21 January 2011
Case Number
Divorce Cause 85 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Ruling on Post Divorce Application for Child Maintenance and School Fees
Outcome
Conditional apportionment of school fees; fallback order for cost-sharing if no agreement is reached.
Judges
LK Kimaru
Legal Topics
Child Maintenance, School Fees Apportionment, Best Interest of Child, Parental Responsibility
Source Language
English
Family and Children Civil Procedure Child Maintenance School Fees Apportionment Best Interest of Child Parental Responsibility

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

Parties

S.R.L

Petitioner

R.S.L

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Cause / Ruling on Post Divorce Application for Child Maintenance and School Fees

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner should be compelled to pay her portion of the school fees for the child K.L.
  2. 2 Whether the child should be transferred to a more affordable school as requested by the respondent.
  3. 3 How the court should apportion responsibility for school fees between the parties in the absence of agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the best interest of the child is the guiding principle in determining disputes concerning the child's education and maintenance. Although the child had stabilized emotionally and academically in the current school, the respondent demonstrated inability to pay the full fees, and the petitioner had not disclosed sufficient income to shoulder the entire burden. The court held that the parties should first attempt to agree on an affordable school within seven days. If no agreement is reached, the petitioner is to pay 25% and the respondent 75% of the current and outstanding school fees, reflecting a fair apportionment of responsibility in light of the parties'...

Court Disposition

Conditional apportionment of school fees; fallback order for cost-sharing if no agreement is reached.

Orders

  • The petitioner and respondent shall agree on an affordable school for the child within seven days.
  • If no agreement is reached, the petitioner shall pay 25% and the respondent 75% of the current and outstanding school fees at the present school.