Maintenance cases dismissed by the High Court reveal a worrying trend of persons aged above 18 years seeking parental support.

The law allows parents to extend parental responsibility to their children who are above the legal age, but in exceptional circumstances.

However, judgements seen by The Standard bear a striking similarity of young adults seeking the courts’ help to have their parents support them.

Another trend arising from the cases we analysed is that of children raised by single parents who now want the absentee parent to also contribute to their lives.

In one of the cases filed before Justice Lydia Achode, which she dismissed on November 7, a 23-year-old applicant - code-named SWA - argued that her father had neglected his parental duties while she was a minor and should, therefore, be forced to take care of her university education.

It emerged that SWA met her father, CM, for the first time in 2015. According to SWA, it was not her fault that he had not been there to raise her.

Justice Achode heard that the young woman had gone ahead to trace her step-sister on social media and learnt that her absentee father was paying Sh126,000 yearly for her step-sister’s Education degree.

SWA argued that in the education system, a child starts school at the age of six years and remains reliant upon their parents for school fees, university or college fees beyond 18 years.

She wanted the court to compel CM to pay Sh396,000 yearly to enable her pursue a degree of her choice at a Kenyan university.

But her father argued that the case was an afterthought, and was meant to offer SWA a lavish lifestyle under the guise of seeking to pursue further education.

Sufficient money

CM claimed his daughter was engaged in gainful personal undertakings that generated sufficient money from which she could fend for herself and pay for her education.

The judge agreed with CM after finding that SWA was hopping from one university programme to another, uncertain about what course to study.

“In any event, the respondent is an adult who can seek employment and cater for her own college fees. Further, in the instant case, the respondent failed to smoothly transition into tertiary education and is not certain of where she wants to pursue her tertiary education,” ruled Justice Achode

In another case, Justice Asenath Ongeri observed that the courts would be setting a dangerous precedent if they forced parents to assume parental responsibility for an adult.

“The whole purpose for providing for extension of parental responsibility is to provide for special circumstances where the attainment of the age of majority would prejudice the welfare of a child already enjoying parental responsibility. It was never meant to apply to a situation when the applicant has long attained the age of majority,” the judge ruled on November 22.

The case was brought by a 26-year-old man, named MNB, who accused his parents, named as JNM and ASM, of denying him a right to education.

He claimed his father, ASM, abandoned him and a twin sister at birth. The court heard that MNB managed to trace ASM in 2013.

His mother, JNM, supported his quest in court. She claimed that ASM had sired the two children through a rape ordeal before he went missing.

But ASM told the court he did not know JNM had given birth to his children. He, however, admitted that he had had a relationship with her.

MNB’s case had been thrown out earlier by the magistrate’s court, which found that allowing adults to pursue their parents for maintenance would be opening Pandora’s box.

Aggrieved, MNB moved to the High Court where he argued that he came to know about his father when he was an adult and wanted him to pay for his university education.

Justice Ongeri, however, dismissed the case, finding that JNM had 'slept on his rights'.

Dangerous precedent

“Even if the said paternity is not in dispute, to ask the respondent to assume parental responsibility for an adult aged 26 years would amount to setting a dangerous precedent,” the judge ruled.

In another case, Justice Aggrey Muchelule saved a man from paying his 28-year-old daughter more than Sh3 million for her to study in the United Kingdom.

The man, named as JNT, had been ordered by a magistrate’s court to extend parental responsibility for his daughter, named as ENT. Aggrieved, he moved to the High Court where he argued that his daughter was in fact employed and could benefit from college loans in the UK.

ENT, on the other hand, argued that her father was a man of means having inherited a lot of property from the estate of her grandfather. The judge allowed JNT’s appeal saying that he had no legal obligation to provide for an adult child.

“The second respondent is looking at the windfall that the appellant inherited from the estate of his late father to be able to say that he now has the means to support her education at the University of Buckingham. Quite unfortunately, the appellant has no legal obligation to provide for his adult children. He may have a social responsibility, but the responsibility is not legal,” ruled Justice Muchelule.

The judge also dismissed yet another case filed by a director of a petroleum company and ordered him to pay his father the cost of the suit.

In the case that has been in court for three years, the 29-year-old man owns a petroleum company but wanted Sh2.8 million from his father as he pursues his master’s degree in terrorism and security studies.

Justice Muchelule observed that the man, identified in court papers as ANW, had attained his undergraduate degree courtesy of his father, EWH.

The judge noted the man is now a director and a shareholder of the petroleum company that is giving him an income and he has no business relying on his father.

The case between ANW and his father stemmed from the magistrate’s court. ANW’s argument was that his father was rich and that he bore equal responsibility with his mother to take care of him. The man also claimed that his mother had gifted him Sh2.6 million for upkeep.

He urged the court to force his father to foot his upkeep bill, which would include refunding his mother the money she had given him.

While urging the court to dismiss the case, EWH said he had educated and maintained his son up to the age of 22 in 2012. The man told the court that his son is a shareholder in a firm that makes Sh2.9 million in annual profit.