[2015] KEHC 7031 (KLR)
The court held that granting a stay of execution of a maintenance order in a children's case is not appropriate, particularly where paternity is not contested and the welfare of the child is paramount. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable alternative figure for maintenance and had not complied fully with the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 7031 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: T M O; Respondent: E A
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 62 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Child Maintenance, Stay of Execution, Appeals Procedure
- 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
T M O
Appellant
E A
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should grant a stay of execution of the children's court order for child maintenance pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the amount of Kshs. 40,000 per month ordered as maintenance was justified and affordable by the applicant.
- 3 Whether the court can revise the maintenance amount at the interlocutory stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that granting a stay of execution of a maintenance order in a children's case is not appropriate, particularly where paternity is not contested and the welfare of the child is paramount. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable alternative figure for maintenance and had not complied fully with the lower court's orders. Revising the maintenance amount at this stage would amount to determining the substantive appeal prematurely. There was no sufficient material to justify a stay, and the application was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 8th August 2014 is dismissed with costs.
- The lower court file shall be returned forthwith to the children’s court registry.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MILIMANI
CIVIL CASE NO. 62 OF 2014 (OS)
T M O………………..…........….APPELLANT
VERSUS
E A………………………....…RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Motion for determination is dated 8th August 2014. It seeks stay of execution of orders made in Nairobi Children’s Court Case No. 339 of 2014 made on 31st July 2014, pending hearing and determination of the appeal filed herein.
2. The application is predicated on the grounds and facts set out in the supporting affidavit. The court had ordered on 5th March 2014 that the applicant provides maintenance for the child at the rate of Kshs.40,000. 00 per month. He sought review of the amount but his application was dismissed on 31st July 2014, where it was ordered that he should continue to pay the monthly sum of Kshs. 40,000. 00 failing which his salary would be attached. His case is that the child in question is very young and that the amount ordered was not justified. He pleads that he cannot afford the amount ordered and he would suffer substantial loss should execution proceed. He states that he is willing to pay a lesser amount which is affordable.
3. The respondent has replied to the application vide his affidavit sworn on 25th August 2014. She states that the applicant has not been complying with the orders of the lower court. She avers that in his affidavit of means, he put his income at Kshs.257,449. 00 per month, yet his expenses stand at Kshs.458,800. 00. She pleads that the applicant can afford the monthly payment of Kshs.40,000. 00 from his various sources of income. She states that she is a student living with her parents.
4. The application was argued orally on 26th August 2014. Mr. Musyoka appeared for the applicant, while Ms. Muhanda urged the case for the respondent. Both articulated their respective client’s positions on the basis of the papers that they had filed for or against the application.
5. It emerged from the proceedings that the applicant had come to court without fully complying with the orders of the lower court. Indeed, at the hearing on 26th August 2014 counsel for the applicant came to court with a postdated cheque intended to clear outstanding arrears. It also emerged that he was at about the same time working on the processing of the child’s birth certificate as earlier ordered by the lower court. It cannot therefore be said that he came to court with clean hands.
6. The applicant complains that the lower court erred in fixing the monthly maintenance at the rate of Kshs.40,000. 00. 00. The Motion dated 8th August 2014 asks me to review this amount to some figure that is reasonable to or affordable by the applicant.
7. I have perused the memorandum of appeal filed herein, dated 8th August 2014 and filed herein on 11th August 2014. The grounds of appeal are that the lower court used the wrong principles of law in arriving of the figure of Khs.400,000. 00 per month. He argues that there was no basis for arriving at the said figure. The grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal are equally the same grounds set out in support of Motion dated 8th August 2014.
8. I am mindful of the fact that this is a children’s case. Stay is sought of an order for payment of money for the maintenance of a child. As a matter of principle stay orders are not always made in children’s cases in respect of orders for maintenance, particularly in cases such as this where paternity is not an issue. I cannot therefore even contemplate staying the orders made by the lower court on the maintenance of the minor.
9. The applicant invites me to revise the amount to a figure that he can afford. I note that he has not suggested any figure of what he considers reasonable. My view is that I cannot revise the maintenance amount ordered by the court for doing so would be tantamount to determining the appeal at the interlocutory stage, for on what basis would I review the said amount without questioning the principles applied by the lower court in arriving at the figure in the first place.
10. I do not find material upon which I can order stay of the orders of the lower court. The application dated 8th August 2014 is for dismissal and I do hereby dismiss the same with costs. The lower court shall be returned forthwith to the children’s court registry.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 30th DAY OF January 2015.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE