High Court family appeal on child maintenance and custody dismissed after the court upheld a monthly maintenance order and found no basis to interfere.
MPL. (Suing As the Mother Andnext friend Of L.L.L. – A Minor) v LL [2025] KEMC 162 (KLR)
Court
Magistrate's Court
Case number
Children's Case E002 of 2025
Judge
AT Sitati
The court found the parental responsibility agreement was not binding, ordered joint custody, and split monthly maintenance equally between the parents.
The court found that the appeal had not been prosecuted for over two years without sufficient cause, constituting inordinate and inexcusable delay. Such delay prejudices the welfare and best interests of the child, which are of paramount importance under the Constitution and the Children Act. The court emphasized that both parents have a legal obligation to provide for the child, and the continued pendency of the appeal would unjustly delay the child's enjoyment of rights to maintenance and care. The court concluded that justice required dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution, allowi…
The High Court dismissed an application for stay of interim child custody and access orders, holding that the best interests of the minors required no interference.
The High Court allowed an appeal against orders granting sole custody and a warrant of arrest, holding that a consent custody order remained binding and contempt was not proved.
The High Court declined to review interim access orders in a family appeal, finding no sufficient new evidence to bar the respondent’s access to the younger child.
The High Court dismissed an application to stay custody orders pending appeal, finding no evidence of substantial loss and emphasizing the children’s best interests.
High Court partly allowed a children’s appeal, confirming actual custody with the mother, joint legal custody, and monthly maintenance, while setting aside a fixed school-fee award.
The High Court found that the Kadhi's Court had jurisdiction to determine issues of child custody and maintenance where both parties are Muslim and have submitted to its authority, as such matters are incidental to marriage and divorce. The Appellant failed to provide evidence of his financial inability to pay the amounts ordered, and the trial court was entitled to make maintenance orders based on the best interests of the children. The court held that the divorce was judicial, not khul'u, as the grounds for dissolution were proven and the Appellant did not consent to khul'u. Therefore, the…