[2017] KEHC 8198 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 8198 (KLR)

The court found that the trial court erred by prioritizing the respondent’s unilateral decision to enroll the child in a boarding school over the constitutional and statutory requirement to prioritize the best interests of the child. The trial court’s reliance on the academic standing of the boarding school and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 8198 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: V A; Respondent: I W
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
2 February 2017
Case Number
Civil Appeal 11 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Interlocutory Appeal From Ruling on Interim Custody and School Placement Orders
Outcome
appeal partially allowed
Judges
AN Makau
Legal Topics
Child Custody, Best Interests of Child, Parental Responsibility, School Placement, Interim Orders
Source Language
english
Family and Children Child Custody Best Interests of Child Parental Responsibility School Placement Interim Orders

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V A

Appellant

I W

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Interlocutory Appeal From Ruling on Interim Custody and School Placement Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in ordering the transfer of the minor V P back to boarding school without considering her best interests.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court failed to be guided by the Children’s Act and the Constitution regarding the best interests of the child.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant, as mother, should have been granted the right to have the child attend a school near her for care and guidance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court erred by prioritizing the respondent’s unilateral decision to enroll the child in a boarding school over the constitutional and statutory requirement to prioritize the best interests of the child. The trial court’s reliance on the academic standing of the boarding school and the respondent’s liberty to choose the school was inconsistent with the Children’s Act and the Constitution, which require that both parents participate in decisions affecting the child and that the child’s welfare and best interests are paramount. The court held that a school which, in collusion with one parent, denies the other parent access to the child cannot be considered to...

Court Disposition

appeal partially allowed

Orders

  • The minor V P is to be forthwith transferred from the boarding school to the academy where she initially schooled and can be under the appellant’s care, pending the hearing and outcome of the main suit.
  • The matter is to proceed to hearing on the issues raised in the plaint dated 26th August 2016 before the same trial court.