[2011] KEHC 4104 (KLR)
The court held that it cannot determine the merits of the custody dispute or uphold the best interests of the child unless the child is physically produced before it. The respondents, having admitted to possessing the child, are under a legal obligation to comply with the court's directive to produce the child. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 4104 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Susan Chepchumba Kaittany; Respondent: Timothy Alala; Respondent: Dominic Walubengo; Respondent: Professor Lena Nakhone; Respondent: Steven Alala
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 4 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Production of Child and Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome
- Interlocutory orders granted; respondents directed to produce the child and attend court; stay of related proceedings.
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Child Custody, Child Welfare, Interim Orders, Jurisdiction of Court
- 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
Susan Chepchumba Kaittany
Applicant
Timothy Alala
Respondent
Dominic Walubengo
Respondent
Professor Lena Nakhone
Respondent
Steven Alala
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Production of Child and Stay of Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents should be compelled to produce the child before the court.
- 2 Whether the best interests of the child require the child to be brought before the court before custody can be determined.
- 3 Whether proceedings in the Children’s Courts at Eldoret and Nairobi should be stayed pending compliance with the High Court's orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it cannot determine the merits of the custody dispute or uphold the best interests of the child unless the child is physically produced before it. The respondents, having admitted to possessing the child, are under a legal obligation to comply with the court's directive to produce the child. The court further found that the seriousness of the matter and the need to protect the child's welfare necessitate the personal attendance of the respondents and the stay of all related proceedings in the Children’s Courts until the High Court's orders are complied with. The court's decision is grounded in the statutory mandate to prioritize the best interests of the child in all...
Court Disposition
Interlocutory orders granted; respondents directed to produce the child and attend court; stay of related proceedings.
Orders
- Respondents, jointly and severally, to produce the child before the court by 9.00 a.m. on 1st February 2011.
- Respondents to be present in court on 1st February 2011.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MISC. APPLICATION NO.4 OF 2011
SUSAN CHEPCHUMBA KAITTANY...........................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
TIMOTHY ALALA.............................................................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
DOMINIC WALUBENGO.................................................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
PROFESSOR LENA NAKHONE....................................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
STEVEN ALALA...............................................................................................................4TH RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The dispute between the applicant and the respondent revolve around the custody of a child – the child is one (1) year and three (3) months old. According to the applicant, the child was kidnapped on 11th January 2011 from her custody by the 1st respondent with the assistance of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondent. As to whether the child was indeed kidnapped is not an issue that this court can determine or rule on at this stage of the proceedings. What is without question, and it has indeed been conceded by the respondents, is that the 1st respondent currently has the custody of the child. The child was taken from the custody of the applicant on 11th January 2011. The 1st respondent appeared before the Children’s court at Eldoret (In Eldoret Children’s Court Case No.18 of 2011) on 18th January 2011. He obtained an order granting him custody of the child for a period of one (1) month. Meanwhile, on the 17th January 2011, the applicant filed suit before the Children’s Court in Nairobi (Children’s Court Case No. 56 of 2011). She obtained an order restoring the child to her custody. Criminal charges have also been lodged with the police.
On 26th January 2011, the applicant appeared before this court seeking various orders from the court. The court directed that the respondents be served for hearing today, 28th January 2011. All the parties, through counsel, appeared in court. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were present in court. This court, with a view to resolving the dispute, ordered the respondent to produce in court the child that is the subject of these proceedings. The child was however not produced in court. Mr. Njuguna learned counsel for the 1st respondent informed the court that the 1st respondent took the child out of the jurisdiction of this court and will avail her on 17th February 2011. The question that this court asks itself is this; was the 1st applicant aware that once he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Children’s court he was required to seek the leave of the court before he deemed it appropriate to take the child out of the jurisdiction of the court? How did he obtain the travel documents of the child? It is known fact that a child of such an age can only be issued with a travel document that is endorsed with that of the mother. The applicant’s skepticism that the 1st applicant has not indeed travelled out of the country has basis in the circumstances. This court is required under Section 4(3)of theChildren Act to, in all circumstances, when considering any decision concerning the welfare of a child to take the best interest of such child into account.
In the present case, it is clear that this court cannot be able to do justice and uphold the best interest of the child if the child is not availed or brought before the jurisdiction of this court. Before this court can consider the merits or otherwise relating to who shall be given custody of the child, the child must be surrendered to this court by the respondents.
I therefore direct that the respondents, both jointly and severally, produce the child before this court by 9. 00 a.m. on 1st February 2011. So that the respondents are made aware of the seriousness of the likely legal consequence that they will face if they do not produce the child before this court, this court hereby orders that they should be present in court on that day (1st February 2011). Matter shall be mentioned on 1st February 2011 to confirmed compliance. So as to ensure that the orders of this court are complied with, all proceedings before the Children’s court at Eldoret (Children’s Court Case No. 18 of 2011) and at Nairobi (Children’s Court Case No.56 of 2011) are stayed pending further orders of the court. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011
L. KIMARU
JUDGE