When blood fights emotional bond: Kanyari wins custody battle, children want stepfather

 

“If you’re going to take me from this house, please take me where Mum is. Let me go lie with her,” this is the desperate plea of Betty Bayo’s teenage daughter, laying bare the emotional cost of a bitter custody battle that has pitted a grieving family’s bonds against the legal rights of a biological parent.

Still mourning the gospel musician who died in November last year, Skyvictor Kanyari and her younger brother, Danny, now face the prospect of leaving the home they associate with their late mother and Hiram Gitau, popularly known as Tash, the man who lived with Bayo and helped raise them.

Their wishes, however, have collided with a court decision granting their biological father, controversial preacher Victor Kanyari, legal and actual custody of the two children.

In a judgment delivered on October 26, 2026, Dagoretti Magistrate Casmir Augustine Obiero acknowledged the children’s strong attachment to Tash and their desire to remain with him. However, the court ruled that their father’s parental responsibility could not be displaced simply because they preferred their current home.

The decision has reignited questions about parental responsibility, children’s wishes and whether the law can reconcile a parent’s legal rights with the relationships children build over the years.

For the children, the dispute is about more than legal claims. It concerns where they feel safe, whom they trust and how they can find stability after losing their mother.

Beatrice Wairimu Mbugua, popularly known as Betty Bayo, died on November 10, 2025. Following her death, the children remained in Tash’s care, setting the stage for a custody dispute that eventually reached court.

Court documents identified the children as S.V., a girl who was 13 and approaching 14 when she testified, and D.V., her 10-year-old brother.

The best arrangement

The dispute centred on competing accounts: Kanyari maintained that he had continued providing for his children after separating from Bayo, while Tash said he had played a substantial role in their upbringing and met some of their financial needs.

The decision has reignited questions about parental responsibility, children’s wishes and whether the law can reconcile a parent’s legal rights with the relationships children build over the years. [File, Standard]

Magistrate Obiero emphasised that the court’s duty was to protect the children’s welfare, stability and rights, rather than reward either adult.

“The Court’s task is not to reward either adult, but to determine the arrangement that best protects the children’s welfare, stability and rights,” the magistrate stated.

Kanyari sought sole legal and actual custody of the children, while Tash opposed the application and challenged the court’s jurisdiction. Alternatively, Tash sought actual custody, care and control, joint legal custody and defined access for Kanyari. He also sought protection against the children’s removal or harassment, reimbursement of school fees and other expenses, and directions concerning earlier proceedings in Kiambu and public statements about the dispute.

His preliminary objection on jurisdiction was dismissed on July 6, 2026, with the magistrate noting that the issue had already been determined.

The central question was whether Kanyari’s status as the surviving biological parent outweighed the children’s established relationship with Tash, and which arrangement best served their interests.

Kanyari told the court that he had remained involved in his children’s lives since separating from Bayo in 2012 and had contributed towards their expenses. He said he enrolled them at Woodcreek School after consulting Bayo and produced fee structures and payment records.

He accused Tash of cutting off communication and influencing the children against him, allegations Tash denied.

Kanyari said he owned houses in Runda, Ruai, Daykio and Njiru, and could accommodate and provide for the children despite his work and church commitments. He also pledged to pay their school fees.

However, he acknowledged during cross-examination that he had not paid the fees since around September 2025, explaining that he would do so once he had assumed full responsibility for the children.

He also admitted taking his daughter’s phone and failing to return it, citing concerns about her exposure to the internet, social media and make-up.

Kanyari denied allegations of drinking alcohol in the children’s presence, inappropriate behaviour or mistreatment. He disputed claims that they were uncomfortable in his care and alleged that Tash had coached them.

The magistrate found no independent medical, police or professional evidence establishing that Kanyari was abusive or that his home was unsafe.

Tash’s account

Tash told the court that he became part of the children’s lives in 2020, when he began living with Bayo and her children. He said he participated in their daily care and helped provide for their needs.

He disputed Kanyari’s account of consistently meeting the children’s expenses, maintaining that he had paid school fees and covered other costs.

According to Tash, the children were initially enrolled at Woodcreek School but were later transferred to Noblegate International School after difficulties returning to Woodcreek because of outstanding fee arrears. He said he paid the fees at Noblegate to ensure their education continued without further disruption.

The decision has reignited questions about parental responsibility, children’s wishes and whether the law can reconcile a parent’s legal rights with the relationships children build over the years. [File, Standard]

However, Tash admitted transferring the children without Kanyari’s consent and without first obtaining the court’s permission. He explained that he acted out of concern for their safety and privacy and wanted to avoid interrupting their education.

The magistrate criticised the decision, noting that it contravened existing status quo directions and failed to reflect the need for consultation on significant matters affecting the children.

Tash denied coaching the children or preventing Kanyari from contacting them. He said he had encouraged Bayo to allow their biological father access and had no objection to Kanyari maintaining contact with them. Nevertheless, he maintained that the children’s wishes and wellbeing should be respected.

He also told the court that the family’s former shared home in Edenville was connected to an ongoing homicide investigation and remained a crime scene.

Although Tash portrayed himself as a father figure, the magistrate drew a distinction between the emotional bond he had established with the children and legal parenthood. The court found that Tash had not acquired parental responsibility through adoption, guardianship or another formal legal process.

“The Defendant’s (Tash) description of himself as a ‘father figure’ does not, without more, establish legal parenthood or transfer the Plaintiff’s (Kanyari) parental responsibility to him,” the magistrate ruled.

The finding did not erase Tash’s role in the children’s lives. Rather, it meant that his caregiving relationship, on its own, could not displace Kanyari’s legal position as their biological father.

The children’s wishes

Perhaps the most consequential evidence came from the children themselves. On August 21, 2026, the court conducted a voire dire examination before hearing their evidence.

The magistrate found the younger child intelligent and coherent and permitted him to give unsworn evidence. His older sister also testified.

The boy told the court that he lived with Tash at Edenville and enjoyed being with him. He said Tash treated him well and was always there for him.

Although he recognised Kanyari as his biological father, he said he did not wish to live with or visit him. He raised concerns about alleged alcohol consumption at his father’s home, claiming that Kanyari’s friends drank and made noise. He also told the court that there had been a time when he missed school because fees had not been paid.

His sister gave similarly strong evidence in favour of remaining with Tash. She said he had cared for her and her brother after their mother’s death, provided for them and supported her creative work. She described him as a trusted parent and confidant.

The decision has reignited questions about parental responsibility, children’s wishes and whether the law can reconcile a parent’s legal rights with the relationships children build over the years. [File, Standard]

The teenager said she did not have a close relationship with Kanyari, whom she described as dishonest. She also accused him of embarrassing her in public.

She told the court that she did not want to live with him and raised concerns about his alleged drinking and the company he kept.

She further alleged that he had taken her phone, clothes, shoes, make-up and money. She asked for the items to be returned and urged him to stop mentioning her in church or elsewhere.

The court did not treat every allegation as independently proved. Instead, it considered the children’s testimony alongside the other evidence and the conflict between the adults.

“Their testimony was direct evidence of their wishes and of their perceptions of the parties’ conduct,” Obiero stated.

The magistrate added that the children’s views could not be disregarded merely because their father disputed them.

Both children clearly expressed a wish to remain with Tash and gave reasons for their preference.

A Children Officer’s report dated August 20, 2026 also recorded their attachment to Tash and recommended gradual and controlled contact with Kanyari.

While ruling in Kanyari’s favour, Magistrate Obiero relied on Article 53 of the Constitution and the Children Act, 2022, which require the best interests of the child to be the primary consideration in decisions affecting children.

The magistrate considered the children’s wishes, their existing care arrangements, continuity of education, the parties’ conduct, financial provision and the potential emotional impact of changing their home.

Law versus emotional bonds

The magistrate acknowledged that Kanyari was the undisputed biological father and surviving parent and retained parental responsibility.

At the same time, the court accepted that Tash had played a substantial caregiving role since 2020 and that the children had developed a strong attachment to him.

The magistrate also considered the recent death of their mother and the substantial conflict between the adults, warning that an abrupt change in living arrangements could distress the children.

“The Plaintiff’s parental responsibility cannot be displaced simply because the children presently prefer to live with the Defendant,” the magistrate stated.

The court nevertheless stressed that Kanyari must have a genuine opportunity to rebuild his relationship with the children and fulfil his parental responsibilities.

The magistrate also rejected Tash’s reliance on an alleged Kikuyu customary marriage to Bayo. Although photographs of a celebration were presented, the court found insufficient evidence of customary negotiations, dowry arrangements, rites or witnesses to establish that a customary marriage had taken place.

The court also declined to order reimbursement of school fees and other expenses claimed by Tash, saying the evidence did not provide a reliable basis for determining the amount payable.

It further reiterated that Tash had not established legal parenthood through adoption, guardianship or another formal legal process.

The magistrate ordered both men to facilitate reasonable communication, ensure that the children’s education and essential needs were met, and refrain from disparaging each other in the children’s presence.

Neither man may remove the children from Kenya, change their school or relocate them outside the court’s jurisdiction without the other’s written agreement or permission from the court.

Daughter’s plea

Despite the court ruling, the emotional conflict continued to play out in public.

In a social media livestream on October 27, Kanyari’s daughter appealed for help, saying she did not want to leave the home she associated with her late mother and Tash. “If you’re going to take me from this house, please take me where Mum is. Let me go lie with her,” she said.

The teenager added that her younger brother was also struggling with the prospect of leaving the home.

Her plea brought into sharp focus the emotional weight of a decision that, while grounded in the law, has profound implications for two children already dealing with the loss of their mother.

Bayo died at Kenyatta National Hospital. At the time of her death, she was married to Tash, having separated from Kanyari years earlier.

In the weeks following her burial, questions over who would care for the children became a source of public tension. Bayo’s mother, Joyce Wairimu Mbugua, also expressed concern about their welfare.

In December 2025, Joyce asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute an inquest into her daughter’s death.

She questioned the circumstances surrounding Bayo’s death and raised concerns about access to medical records and post-mortem information.

The DPP subsequently directed the Directorate of Criminal Investigations to investigate the circumstances of Bayo’s death and submit its findings.

As the custody dispute continues to draw public attention, the children’s plea has placed their emotional needs at the centre of the debate. Beyond the competing claims of the adults, their future rests on whether the legal process and the people involved can provide them with stability, reassurance and room to grieve.