Nairobi Court Orders a Man to Provide for His Former Wife’s Children Born Out of Wedlock

A Nairobi court has ordered a man to continue supporting two children his former wife got from a different relationship.

The man codenamed EKTM had moved to the High Court to challenge a Children’s Court order requiring him to continue raising the two minors.

Although the father of three claimed that his former wife identified in court as ECC hid from him about carrying the pregnancy of another man, the Children’s Court found that he assumed parental responsibility and even gave their last born his own name. The court heard that out of the three children, only the second-born, was the biological child of EKTM.

Court records show that ECC got married to EKTM while she was five months pregnant from a previous relationship and the man agreed to raise this child as his own. EKTM told the court that the two broke up after he discovered that the last-born was not his biological child. 

The couple met in July 2006 and begun to live together as husband and wife in September of the same year, but formalized their union on November 11th, 2016 in a ceremony at the Attorney General’s Office. On December 18th, 2018, ECC filed for judicial separation, and in 2019 EKTM petitioned for the dissolution of the marriage. The couple is divorced.

In his appeal, the man argued that the lower court erred by finding that he should solely bear the burden of raising the two children who are not his biological children, insisting that their biological fathers should be compelled to cater for their needs.

He stated that he had had given the two minors enough by providing house rent, medical expenses, school fees and school-related expenses. EKTM also wanted the court to set aside the order requiring him to be taking the last-born with him during weekends and school holidays.

In her reply, the woman admitted that she had a relationship with another man while still married to EKTM and she conceived the last child born.

In his ruling, Justice Aggrey Muchelule upheld the Children’s Court decision for the man to continue providing for the two kids but he set an order requiring him to pay Sh30,000 on top of providing their school fees and medical expenses.

“The respondent’s (ECC) evidence was that when she met the appellant (EKTM), she was five months pregnant. The pregnancy was discussed and the appellant accepted to take up responsibility. They later begun to live together as husband and wife. The trial court considered the rival versions and accepted that of the respondent. I find no reason to disturb that finding,” Justice Muchelule noted.

“It makes sense to note that the needs of the child must be reasonable and moderate and should relate to the standards of the parents. The needs of the child should not be such that, at the end of the day, the parents are left in financial stress,” he added.

‘