AWW v NM (suing behalf of SWM - Minor) [2020] KEHC 6106 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE  HIGH COURT OF  KENYA

AT KERUGOYA

MISCELLENOUS CIVIL CASE NO:   11 OF  2020

AWW………….………………….………. APPLICANT

V E R S U S

NM (Suing behalf of SWM - Minor) …RESPONDENT

RULING

1. This matter  has  been  brought  to  my  attention  vide  a letter  dated  24th  April, 2020  by   Wanjiru  Wambugu  Advocate  for  the  defendant  AWW  in  Chief  Magistrate’s  court at  Kerugoya  Civil Case No. 6 of  2020.

2. The letter is  urging  me  to  Review  orders  in  the  above  case.  A brief background on the matter is that,  the  defendant  is  the  mother  of  SWM aged  three  years,  while  the  Plaintiff   NM  is  the  father.  The Defendant   contends that  she  has  been  living  with  the  baby  since  separating  with  her  father,   The  Plaintiff  has  filed  a  suit   Civil  Case  no.  6 of  2020  in  the  Chief  Magistrate’s  court  at  Kerugoya, seeking  orders  of;

1. Divorce.

2. Custody of  the  Child  SWM

3. The Plaintiff had filed an application  under  certificate  of  urgency,  in  which  the  trial magistrate  granted  ex-parte  orders  of  status quo.   Based on those orders:  The    Plaintiff  took  away  the  child  SWM  from  the  mother.  This is because at  the  time  the  ex-parte  orders  were  issued  the  mother  was  in  custody  of  the  child.

4. It is contended that the Defendant   filed an  application  to  set aside  the  orders  citing  amongst  others    the  following  grounds:

a. Jurisdiction

b. The trial magistrate proceeded to make further orders of alternative custody of the child  despite  there  being   issues  of  jurisdiction and  competency  of  the  suit having   been  raised.

The defendant   managed to have custody of the child for a limited period.

5. However, on the 24th April, 2020 the defendant  was  served  with  a   hearing  notice  at  11. 30a.m,  for  the  hearing  of  an  application  dated  27th March, 2020  which   was  initially  scheduled  for  hearing on  23rd  April, 2020 and  hearing  notice  indicated  that  the  hearing  was  to be  at  12. 30p.m or  thereabout. This   despite   that they had raised the issue  that  the  Court  had  no  jurisdiction  and  the  suit  was not  properly  before  it.

6. The  Advocate  and  the  defendant  were  unable  to  attend  court  due  to  the  short  notice,  and  the   advocate  was  out  of   Kerugoya  town  and  could  not  be  reached.

It is  against  that  background  that  the   Applicant  is  seeking  revision  on  the  grounds  that:

a. Lack of jurisdiction of the   Presiding MagistrateUnder  Section  73, 74  & 76  of  the  Children’s  Act  as  the  said  court  is  not  Gazetted  as  one.  The court  is  therefore  acting  without  jurisdiction.

b. Under Section 85 of  the Marriage  Act  which is  very clear  in  prohibiting  filling  of  matters  relating  to  a child in a  Divorce  Cause  and  instead  directing  matters  to be  filed  in a  children’s  court.

c. The court to take Judicial Notice  that  this being  a very  sensitive  period  due  to  the  Covid – 19  pandemic  it  is not  to the  interest  of  the  child being  pushed  to  and  forth  different  places,  environment  and  people.

d. Lack of authority as next   of friend.

The  court  is  asked  to  issue  the  following  orders:

a.Find that   the  court  has  no  jurisdiction  to  hear  matters  of  child  custody  under  Section  73, 74  and  76  of  the  Children’s  Act  and  Section  85  of  the  Marriage  Act.

b. Set aside  all the  orders  granted  by  the  lower  court.

c. Give  such  further  orders  as  it  may  find  just  and  to  the  interest  of  the  child.

7. The brief  background   of  the  is that  the  plaintiff  and  the  defendant  in  the  Civil  case started  cohabiting  as   husband  and  wife  from  the  month  of  May, 2015.  Thereafter they  were blessed  with  one  issue  of  the  marriage,  in  the  year  2016,  who  is  the  subject  matter  in  this  Revision.

8. In the   Suit  the  defendant  contends  that  the  union between  him and  the defendant  was  locked  with   differences  culminating  in  the plaintiff  filing  the  suit, alleging  that  the  defendant  had  treated  him  with  cruelty,  and  seeking  a  declaration  that  the  union  between  him and  the  defendant   had  irretrievably  broken  down  and  the  same  is  null  and  void  and stands  as  dissolved.

9. In the  suit  he prayed  that  he  be  granted  the  custody  of  the  issue  of  the  union,  with  the  defendant  having  limited  and  supervised  access. Together with that suit  he  had  filed  a Notice  of Motion stated to be   under  the  Marriage  Act  2014  and  the  Children’s  Act Cap  141. Though no  provisions   were  cited.

10. The  Plaintiff   was  seeking  among  other  orders  that  there  be  status  quo,  existing  before  the  morning  of  23rd  March, 2020  in  regard  to  the  custody  of  the  minor  SWM be  maintained  pending  the   hearing  and  determination  of  the  main  suit.  That  the  Court  be  pleased  to  order  a   Children’s  officer  report, and  the state  of  the minor, and  supervise  compliance of   any orders   granted  therein.

11. It is based on that application the Court granted   ex-parte orders  and  status  quo, which  the  plaintiff  used  to   take  away  the  child  from  the  mother,  who  by  then  had  custody  of  the child.

12. I  have  considered  the  application.  The  applicant  is  invoking   the  supervisory  jurisdiction of  this  court  to call  for   lower  court file  and  make  orders as would  be  appropriate  in  the  interest  of  justice.

13. The  Constitution  of  Kenya  gives  the  High  Court  jurisdiction  to  call  for  the  records  of  the  sub-ordinate  courts  and  make  such orders  as  it  would  deem  appropriate   to  ensure  the  fair  administration  of  justice.

Article 165 (6) and (7) of The  Constitution  states  as  follows;

(6) The High  Court  has  supervisory  jurisdiction  over  the  sub-ordinate  courts  and  over  any  person,  body  or  authority  exercising  a  judicial  or  quasi –judicial  function,  but  not  over  a  superior  court.

(7) For  the  purpose  of  clause (6) the  High  Court  may  call  for the  record  of  any  proceedings  before  any  sub-ordinate  court or  person,  body  or  authority referred  to  in clause (6)  and may  make  any   order  or  give  any  direction  it  considers  appropriate  to  ensure  the  fair  administration  of  justice.

14. I have called for  the  Lower  Court  file that  is  Chief  Magistrate’s  Court   at  Kerugoya  Civil  Case  No. 6 of  2020,  and  upon  perusal  I  have noted  that  the  trial  magistrate  issued  the  order  dated 27th Day of March 2020, which  stated  as  follows:

a) That the application is hereby certified urgent.

b) That the court grants order (b) in the interim to the effect that the Respondent/Plaintiff return the minor SWM to the custody of the defendant/applicant.

c) That the custody and access be equally shared specifically two weeks, the child be with the father and the next two weeks with the mother.

d) The child having been with the father at the moment this order, shall commence on the 3oth of March 2020 when the father shall hand over the child to the mother/plaintiff who will stay with her until the 20th of April, 202 when she shall hand over the child to the father.

e) That the matter be mentioned on the 23rd April 2020.

f) That the application proceeds for hearing after the court resume normal operations.

g) That in the meantime a social  enquiry report be undertaken and the children’s department to oversee the handing over of the minor in compliance with the orders.

15. The  suit  was  filed  as  a  Civil  suit seeking declaration  that  the  union  between  the  parties  has  irretrievably  broken down  and  that  the  plaintiff  who  is  the  father  of  the  child be granted custody, and  the  defendant  being  the  mother  be  issued  with  limited,  supervised  access.

16. The Children’s  Act has  introduced  special  courts to  handle  matters   involving  children, and  for  a  magistrate  to handle   children’s matters  there  is  a requirement  that  such  an  officer  be gazetted  by  the  Chief  Justice  to  preside  over  cases  involving  children   in  any  area  of  the  Country.  Section 73 of   The Children’s Act  provides  that:

“There shall be courts  to be known  as  Children’s  court  constituted  in  accordance   with  the  provisions  of  this  section  for  the  purpose of:

a. Conducting Civil proceedings on matters set out under part 111, V, VII, VII1, IX, X, XI, XIII

b. ………

c. …………

d. Exercising any other  jurisdiction conferred by this or any other written law:

Provided that:

i. ………..

ii. The Chief Justice may by notice in the gazette appoint a magistrate to preside over cases involving children in respect of  any  area  in  the  country.

iii. ……………..

iv. ………………”

17. This provisions means that it is only the court gazetted as provided under this section that will have jurisdiction to entertain matters where a child or children are involved.

There two issues which arise;

i. Jurisdiction.

ii. Revision.

(i) JURISDICTION

- It is alleged that the trial magistrate acted without jurisdiction. From the proceedings before the trial court, I   have  noted  that  the  issue  of jurisdiction  was  raised  by  the  counsel  for  the  applicant.   No Ruling was given by  the  trial magistrate on the issue.  It  has been  stated  that   jurisdiction  is  everything  and  without  it   the  court  downs  its  tools,  and  that  is  why  it  is  important  that  when  the  issue  of  jurisdiction  is  raised  it  is  dealt  with promptly  by  the trial  court,  so  that   it  can  inform  the  parties  whether  it  has  jurisdiction  or not.

-   From the record it is not easy to tell since this   issue was not dealt with by the magistrate  to  determine  whether or not it had jurisdiction.  In the Caseof: The Owners of Motor-Vessel  Lilians  -versus-  Caltex  oil  Kenya  limited  1989  KLR  it  was  stated  that:   Jurisdiction  is  everything  and  without  it  the  court  has  no  power   to make   one  more  step,  and  where  the  issue  of  jurisdiction  is  raised, it  must be determined  immediately  irrespective  of the  evidential material  before  the  court.

Secondly the applicant has referred this court to Section 85 of the Marriage Act. (No. 4 of 2014).  Which provides:

Order concerning children -

“Custody and maintenance  of  children  shall be dealt   with in   accordance  with  the  Children  Act ( Cap  141)  and  any  other  written  law.”

The   Act in its definition  ofmatrimonial  proceedingshas  stated  that  maintenance  or  custody   of  children  must  be  instituted  independently of  a  Petition  for   Divorce.   A  clear  indication  that:  matters  of  custody  and  maintenance  must  be  instituted  in separate  proceedings  and  not  in  Divorce  proceedings.

Section 2  of  The  Act  Provides  as  follows:

“Matrimonialproceedings means  proceedings  instituted  under  part  IX  and  include  proceedings   for  the  payment  of  maintenance  of   custody  of  children   instituted  independently  of  a  petition  for  a  declaratory decree  or  for  annulment,  separation  or divorce.”   So, though matrimonial proceedings include   maintenance, or   custody  of  children, they  must  be  determined  in  separate  suits.  That is a suit  which  must  be  filed  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of   The  Children  Act.

The Preamble   to the Children Act, states as follows:

“AnAct  of  parliament  to  make  provisions  of  parental  responsibility, fostering,  adoption,  custody, maintenance,  guardianship,  care  and  protection  of  children  to  make  provision   for  the administration  of  the  children’s  institutions  to  give effect  to  principals of  the   convention  on  the  right  of  the  child, and   African charter  of  the   rights  and  welfare  of  the  child, and  for  connected  purposes.”

It is a clear intention of parliament that such matters involving children must be dealt with as provided under the Children’s   Act.

Any   matter  involving  a  child  where  there  are  divorce  proceedings, must  be  dealt  with  in  separate  proceedings  from  the divorce.   So   in the  matter  before  me, it  is clear  that  the  trial  magistrate made  orders  of  custody  in  divorce  proceedings,  and  denied  the  parties  an  opportunity  to  ventilate the  matters  concerning  the child,  in  separate  proceedings, in  which  case  all  the  facts could  be laid  before  the  court for  exhaustive  determination .There was no thorough enquiry by the children officer.

It  was  incumbent   that  the  trial  magistrate to  consider  and  give  a determination  on  the  issue  raised  by the  Applicant that;

(i) He  had  no  jurisdiction.

(ii) That  the  matter  could not  be  raised in divorce proceedings.

He  ought  to  have  determined  the issue  of  jurisdiction  the  minute  it  was  raised  before  making  any  other  order.   Indeed   where  a  court  has  to  make  an  order  concerning  a  child.  The  court  ought  to  have  considered   whether  the  order  was  in the  best  interest  of  the  child,  which  is  the guiding  principal   while  dealing  with  matters   concerning  a child  as  provided  under  Article  53  (2)  of   the  Constitution  which  states:

“  A child  best  interest  are  of  paramount  importance  in  every  matter  concerning  the  child”    Further   Section  76 (1)  of  The  Children’s  Act  talks  of  the   general principal  in  regard  to  proceedings of  the  Children’s court, and  it  provides  that  “  Subject  to  Section  4  where a  court  is  considering  whether  or  not  to  make  one  or  more  orders,  under  this   act  with  respect  to  a  child  shall not   make  the  order   or  any   other  orders  unless  it  considers  that;  doing  so  would  be  more  beneficial  to  the  welfare  of  the  child,  than  making  no  order  at all.”

(ii) Revision

This court has jurisdiction  to  review  decisions  made  by  the  sub-ordinate  courts, and  its  supervisory  role   over  sub-ordinate  courts,  as  provided  under  Article  65 (6) and ( 7) of  the  Constitution,  I find  that  the  proceedings  before  the   trial  magistrate  were  flawed as  orders  were  made  in  violation  of  the  Children’s  Act and  the  Marriage  Act. The magistrate lacked jurisdiction, to issue the orders, in the proceedings which were before him, and the  trial  magistrate  also  failed  to   address  the  issue  of  jurisdiction  when  it  was  raised  before  making  any  other  orders and  for  this  reasons,   I  will issue  orders to  review  the  proceedings before  the  trial  magistrate.

I  make  the  following  orders;

1. All the orders issued in Chief Magistrate’s court Civil case no. 6 of  2020 are  vacated  and  set  aside.

2. The custody of the child be restored to the applicant, for the time being.

3. The  matter  concerning  the custody of  the  child be  filed  in  a separate  suite  in  the   Children’s  court,  and  to  proceed  before  a  magistrate  with  jurisdiction,  other  than  Hon.  Wambo.

Dated at Kerugoya this 28th day of April 2020.

L. W. GITARI

JUDGE