SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

FAM v HSS (Civil Appeal 129 of 2007) [2008] KECA 316 (KLR) (25 April 2008) (Judgment)

[2008] KECA 316 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
316
Citation
[2008] KECA 316 (KLR)
Decided
25 April 2008
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the Ruling of the High Court of Kenya at NairobiCoramEM GITHINJI, E. O. O'KUBASU, SEO BOSIRE
Holding

The High Court had no jurisdiction to enforce the orders of the Children's Court through an application for committal for contempt. The order for the return of the child was an independent and severable application.

Facts

The case involved a dispute over the custody and maintenance of a child, with the High Court ordering the mother to return the child to Kenya while her appeal was pending.

Issues

  1. procedure for committal of a contemnor
  2. jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce orders of the Children's Court
  3. severability of applications
  4. order for return of a child without hearing all parties

Reasoning

The court held that the High Court, sitting as an appellate court, had no jurisdiction to enforce the orders of the subordinate court through an application for committal for contempt. It had no jurisdiction to entertain both the application for leave and the application for committal for contempt.

Outcome

The appeal was partially allowed, and the order for the return of the child to Kenya was dismissed. The appellant's notice of motion for discharge of the ex parte order for return of the child was ordered to be heard on priority basis.

Orders

  • Order for the return of the child SS to Kenya dismissed
  • Order for the return of the child to Kenya to be enforced after hearing the appellant's notice of motion for discharge of the ex parte order

Remedies

  • Hearing of the appellant's notice of motion for discharge of the ex parte order for return of the child on priority basis

Authorities cited

Cases cited (3)
  • Gordon v Gordon [1904-1907] All ER Rep 702
  • XLtd v Morgan Grampian (Publishers) Ltd [1990] 2 All ER 1
  • Rose Detho v Ratila Automobiles Limited and Six Others - Civil Application No Nai 304 of 2006 - majority ruling dated May 25, 2007 (unreported)
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case