DB v RZM [2025] KEHC 4201 (KLR)

DB v RZM (Family Appeal E137 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 4201 (KLR) (Family) (3 April 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 4201 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Family

Family Appeal E137 of 2023

HK Chemitei, J

April 3, 2025

Between

DB

Applicant

and

RZM

Respondent

Ruling

1. In his Notice of Motion dated 11th December 2023 the Applicant pray for orders:-(1)Spent(2)Spent(3)Spent(4)That prayer 2 and 3 be granted pending the hearing and determination of the appeal against the trials court’s decision of 10th November 2023. (5)Costs be provided for.

2. The application is supported by the Applicant’s sworn affidavit dated 11th December 2023.

3. The substance of the application is that the Respondent had obtained a warrant of arrest against the Applicant pursuant to the ruling of the court dated 10th November 2023 in which the Applicant had failed to honour the directives of the court to pay his part of the minor’s maintenance.

4. The affidavit has given a chronology of the children’s case including several applications which were filed post judgment It is his case that he was not accorded a chance to explain himself before the ruling was given.

5. He further denied that he was in violation of the orders and that he had honored the part which had directed him to pay. He therefore prayed for the warrants of arrest to be stayed pending this appeal.

6. On her part the Respondent vide her replying affidavit dated 29th April 2024 opposed the application arguing that the Applicant had failed to pay the amount which he was ordered and the court was therefore right in issuing the warrant of arrest against him.

7. That despite being granted an opportunity the Applicant has failed to refund her the sum of Kshs.60,000 which he had been directed to pay as well as the court execution charges.

Analysis And Determination 8. I have perused the available pleadings especially the rival affidavits as well as the written submissions by the parties. I have also read the ruling dated 10th November 2023 by the trial court.

9. I think save for the issue of whether the Applicant was granted time and opportunity to comply the rest of the directives are as clear as sunlight.

10. A good example is the directive by the court that the Applicant refunds the amount of Kshs.145,203 being fees paid by the Respondent which essentially was to be paid by the Applicant. The court in my understanding simply wanted the parties to do some simple accounting and thereafter refund each other as the case might be.

11. The other issues which were contained in the substantive judgement and which I do not think the Applicant is appealing against remains the same. A clear simple reading of the application is simply that the Applicant feels ambushed by the orders and directives from the trial court. In other words, he did not get proper notices when the ruling was being delivered.

12. Be it as it may I do not find the application one that the court should spend much energy and I direct that:-(a)The Applicant shall within 14 days from the date herein comply with the orders of the court dated 10th November 2023. (b)Meanwhile and pending the above compliance warrants of arrest are stayed for 14 days.(c)Costs in the cause.

DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 3RDDAY OF APRIL, 2025. H K CHEMITEIJUDGE