1. On 19th October 2023, the Hon Habib Salim Vumbi, Principal Kadhi, delivered a judgment in which he held as follows:-
(1) That this honourable Court do hereby declare that the house at Kadzandani Area of Plot No 259/Section II/MN (Lakeview Estate) Phase 6 in Bamburi, which is a four-flat house, and the two plots at Bombolulu Estate Mombasa are matrimonial property of the parties herein;
(2) That the petitioner is entitled to a 20% share of the matrimonial property whereas the Respondent owns an 80% share;
(3) That this honourable court do hereby order the petitioner to vacate the house at Kadzandani matrimonial property within 60 days from the date hereof;
(4) That this honourable Court do hereby order the petitioner to stop collecting rent from the house at Kadzandani matrimonial property with immediate effect;
(5) That the parties herein, being shareholders of the house at Kadzandani matrimonial property, to appoint an agent for the purpose of collecting rent;
(6) That this honourable Court do hereby vest the actual and physical custody of the minors in the petitioner herein. However, the respondent to have reasonable access to the minors;
(7) That this honourable Court do hereby direct the respondent to make a monthly payment of Kes.30,000.00 for the upkeep of the minors;
(8) That this honourable Court directs the respondent to provide alternative shelter for the minors together with their mother, the petitioner herein;
(9) That the respondent has an obligation for the education, both madrasa and school, towards the minors;
(10) That the respondent also has an obligation to facilitate the medication of the minors whenever the need arises; and
(11) That each party bears its own costs.
2. The appellant, the petitioner in the cause before the Kadhi Court, was aggrieved by the said decision and filed an appeal against the said determination. She raised nine grounds of appeal, of which the following are the most relevant at this point:-
2. That the honorable Kadhi erred in law and in fact, in finding for the respondent with regard to declaring the house at Kadzandani erected on Plot No 259/Section II/MN Bamburi as matrimonial property despite overwhelming evidence produced by the appellant.
3.That the honourable Kadhi erred in law and in fact, in failing to find that there was no contribution on the part of the respondent in respect of Plot No 259/section II/MN Bamburi and two double plots at Bombolulu Estate Mombasa; and
7.That the learned Kadhi erred in law and, in fact, in delving into matters that were outside his jurisdiction by making a determination pertaining to the custody of the children.
3. The appellant/respondent filed a Notice of Motion dated 27th November 2023, vide which she sought a stay of execution of the impugned decision of the honourable Principal Kadhi. The application was opposed by the respondent/Applicant.
4. Upon hearing the parties, I delivered a ruling on 15th March 2024 in which I found that the application for stay of execution had merit and ordered that the “execution the orders issued by Kadhi on 19th October 2023 is hereby stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.”
5. At the time of delivery of my decision, I directed that the Record of Appeal be filed within 30 days of the said date, and that the appeal would be canvassed by written submissions. I noted during the subsequent mentions that there was a pending appeal between the same parties, being High Court Family Appeal No E019 of 2024. I directed that I would near both appeals concurrently.
6. On 29th July 2024, the respondent/applicant filed the instant application. The orders he seeks, so far as relevant, are :-
3. That pending the hearing and determination of the appeal herein, this honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of temporary injunction restraining the appellant, other by herself, her principals, agents, servants and or anyone else from collecting rent from the matrimonial property;
4. that this honourable Court be pleased to order NAIM MAJADA AGENCIES, the rent collection agent duly appointed by the Kadhi for purposes of collecting rent from the matrimonial property, to collect rent forthwith;
5. That this honourable Court be pleased to issue orders for the appellant to provide a full inventory and statement of account for the rent proceeds collected from the matrimonial property from the period between 19th October 2023, the dated of the judgment from the trial Court, to date;
6. that this honorable Court be pleased to issue any other or further orders/directions in the interest of justice herein
7. that costs of his application be in the cause
7. The application is based on the affidavit sworn by the respondent/applicant on 29th July 2024 and also on the grounds stated in the body of the motion. Briefly stated, the respondent/applicant averred that the judgment of the court below directed the appellant/respondent not to collect from the matrimonial property. When the parties failed to agree on which agent should collect rent the Court identified an agent. Following this Court\'s issuance of the stay order, the appellant/respondent had been exclusively collecting rent from the matrimonial property to the exclusion of the respondent/applicant and had failed to account for the same. The respondent deemed this unfair as he has a share in the matrimonial property.
8. The respondent/applicant averred that the estate agent appointed by Hon Kadhi be allowed to collect rent and account for it. He stated that the rent income exceeded Kes.300,000.00, which was more than what the appellant/respondent was to be paid by the respondent/applicant pursuant to the judgment of the Hon Kadhi as maintenance. Regarding the maintenance of the children, the respondent/applicant stated that he was ready and willing to comply with the maintenance orders issued by the Court. He stated that if the appellant/respondent continued to collect rent, he would be prejudiced.
9. The respondent/applicant attached to his application the judgment of the Court below the decrees, the letter dated 1 November 2023, and the order dated 8 December 2023 issued by the Kadhi Court.
10. The application is opposed. The appellant/respondent filed a replying affidavit which she swore on 31st July 2024. The appellant/respondent stated that this Court stayed the judgment of the Court below. He annexed a copy of the order vide which stay was given. She deposed that the rent collected from the premises was used to sustain and maintain the children, whom she said had been abandoned by the respondent/applicant and to whom he provided little help towards their upkeep. The rent, she averred, paid for school fees, school-related expenses, food, clothing and medical needs.
11. The appellant/respondent averred that without the rental income, she would not be able to provide food, clothing, medical attention, and a stable home. She further averred that she lived in constant fear of the respondent/applicant forcefully evicting her and the children from the house they currently live in.
12. She denied that the house belonged to the respondent/applicant. According to her, she has the right to deal with the rental income and also has a say regarding the person who should collect it. She stated that the issue of ownership of the property is a serious issue that can only be determined on appeal. Thus, she urged that I dismiss the appeal.
13. I heard the application on 6th August 2024. Ms Jadi, learned counsel for the respondent/applicant, submitted that her client was seeking temporary injunctive relief to prevent the appellant/respondent from collecting rent from the matrimonial property. Counsel gave the history of the matter up to the point this Court issued orders of stay of execution of the judgment of the Hon Kadhi.
14. Ms Jadi submitted that the appellant/respondent was collecting rent amounting to over Kes.300,000.00, which amount exceeds what she was entitled to get pursuant to the judgment of the Kadhi and the Children’s Court, which gave her Kes.30,000.00 and Kes.80,000.00, respectively, which amounts are cumulatively, far less than what she is getting as rent every month. She further submitted that her client had no problem with the appellant/ respondent remaining in the matrimonial home. The respondent/applicant’s complaint was with rent collection by the appellant/respondent. He expressed his readiness to provide for the children. It was submitted that the appellant/respondent made no direct contribution towards the construction of the house.
15. The application was opposed. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent. Mr Obonyo submitted that this Court delivered its decision on 15th March 2024, vide which it stayed the decision of the Hon Kadhi pending the determination of the appeal. Counsel submitted that the instant application sought to grant the respondent/applicant a second bite of the cherry. It was urged that the decision of the Children\'s Court was anchored on section 8 of the Children Act and Article 53 of the Constitution. Mr Obonyo argued that the respondent/applicant hadn’t shown that he had contributed in any manner towards the children\'s upkeep since 2019.
16. It was urged that directions on the hearing of the appeal had been complied with. In the circumstances, counsel urged the application was unmeritorious, repetitive and a waste of the court’s time. It was further urged that the cornerstone of this application formed the pillar of the appeal and that if I allowed the application, I would predetermine the appeal. I was, therefore, urged to dismiss it.
17. In response, Ms Jadi submitted that her client had not previously sought an injunction. She prayed that the agent already appointed by the Kadhi be permitted to collect rent as the appellant/respondent was already collecting too much rent. Counsel submitted that parental responsibility was joint and equal and that, in this instance, the appellant/respondent hadn’t shown what she was doing to take care of the children. She thus prayed that I allow the application.
18. I have considered the Notice of Motion dated 29 July 2024, the affidavit in support and the annexures thereto, the replying affidavit sworn on 31 July 2024, and the oral submissions of the parties. I must now determine whether the application has merit.
19. To do this, I must distil the issues in contention herein and determine them. Having done so, I find the issues to be:-
1. Whether having issued a stay pending appeal, the court may issue an injunction pending appeal; and
2. Whether, if it can do so, there is justification for issuance of an injunction pending appeal.
20. The decision of the Hon Kadhi dealt with both matrimonial property disputes and the maintenance of the children. Counsel for the respondent/applicant submitted that the effect of my ruling was that an injustice was visited on her client as the appellant/respondent was allowed to collect an amount far in excess of what the Children\'s Court and the Kadhi Court granted her.
21. Is the application res judicata$1 In my view, the res judicata doctrine does not apply. In matters relating to children, the Court is required by Article 53(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and section 8 of the Children Act to consider the best interest of the children. Further, Article 159(2) (e) of the Constitution states that Courts must administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities.
22. In ANM vs MN [2016]eKLR M Muigai J held that:-
“24.The application is not res judicata because
a. matters relating to children are determined on the basis of the best interest of the child which are paramount as espoused in article 53(3) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
b. Res judicata is not applicable to children matters as it is not expressly provided for in the Children’s Act, 2001…”
23. In the circumstances, I find and hold that I can hear and determine this application, notwithstanding that I had heard and determined the application for stay.
24. Should an injunction be pending an appeal issue$2 The principles guiding the issuance of injunctions pending appeal were discussed by the Court in Patricia Njeri & 3 others –vs- National Museum of Kenya [2004]eKLR. In the said case Visram J (as he then was) stated that
“In the Venture Capital case the Court of Appeal said that an order for injunction pending appeal is a discretionary matter. The discretion must, however, be “exercised judicially and not in whimsical or arbitrary fashion.” This discretion is guided by certain principles some of which are as follows:
(a) The discretion will be exercised against an Applicant whose appeal is frivolous (See Madhupaper International Limited vs Kerr (1985) KLR 840 (cited in Venture Capital ). The Applicant must state that a reasonable argument can be put forward in support of his appeal (J. K. Industries vs KCB (1982 – 88) KLR 1088 (also cited in Venture Capital)
. (b) The discretion should be refused where it would inflict greater hardship than it would avoid (See Madhupaper supra).
(c) The Applicant must show that to refuse the injunction would render his appeal nugatory (See Butt vs Rent Restriction Tribunal (1982) KLR 417 (cited also in Venture Capital ).
(d) The Court should also be guided by the principles in Giella vs Cassman Brown & Company Ltd (1973) EA 358 as set out in the case of Shitukha Mwamodo & Others (1986) KLR 445 (also cited in Venture Capital ).”
25. The appeal filed herein is not frivolous. This Court has already admitted the appeal. The Court has also perused the Hon Kadhi\'s determination and is of the opinion that the issues raised are weighty and call for determination on merit.
26. Would allowing the application inflict great hardship on the appellant/respondent$3 Whereas this is a distinct possibility, the difficulty can be mitigated by carefully calibrated orders that ensure that the appellant/respondent receives the support the lower Courts granted her without unduly prejudicing the interest of the respondent/applicant.
27. I am of the view that if the application is denied it may not be possible for the respondent/applicant to recover the amounts collected by the appellant/respondent, and used by her, should he be ultimately successful.
28. The Hon Kadhi and the Children Court have assessed the quantum of maintenance they think would sustain the appellant/respondent. The said amounts are useful guides to this court.
29. The upshot of the foregoing is that I am persuaded that an order of injunction, carefully calibrated so as not to occasion the appellant/respondent hardship, ought to issue.
30. The orders that commend themselves to me therefor are:-
1. Pending the determination of the appeal an order of injunction is hereby issued restraining the appellant, her principals, agents and or servants from collecting rent from the houses in Kadzandani area, Plot No 259/Section II/MN (Lakeview Estate), Phase 6, situated at Bamburi and two plots at Bombolulu Estate;
2. The rent with respect to the said properties shall be collected by Naim Najadh Agencies and deposited in Court less:-
(1) Kes50,000.00, every month ordered by the Children\'s Court, which shall be paid directly to the appellant/respondent on or before the 5th day of every month;
(2) Kes.30,000.00, every month ordered by the Kadhi’s Court, which shall be paid directly to the appellant/respondent on or before the 5th day of every month;
(3) Kes.3,500.00, every month, for purchase of clothes for the children, which shall be paid directly to the appellant/respondent on or before the 5th day of every month.
3. The respondent/applicant shall pay school fees, school-related expenses, and medical costs of the minors whenever they fall due;
4. The appellant/respondent shall remain in the penthouse at Kadzandani matrimonial home until the appeal is determined; and
5. In the interest of justice, the appeal in this matter shall be fast-tracked.
31. As this is a family matter I make no orders as to costs.
32. Orders accordingly.
Dated and signed at Mombasa this 18th day of September 2024. Delivered virtually via Microsoft TEAMS.
(1) That this honourable Court do hereby declare that the house at Kadzandani Area of Plot No 259/Section II/MN (Lakeview Estate) Phase 6 in Bamburi, which is a four-flat house, and the two plots at Bombolulu Estate Mombasa are matrimonial property of the parties herein;
(2) That the petitioner is entitled to a 20% share of the matrimonial property whereas the Respondent owns an 80% share;
(3) That this honourable court do hereby order the petitioner to vacate the house at Kadzandani matrimonial property within 60 days from the date hereof;
(4) That this honourable Court do hereby order the petitioner to stop collecting rent from the house at Kadzandani matrimonial property with immediate effect;
(5) That the parties herein, being shareholders of the house at Kadzandani matrimonial property, to appoint an agent for the purpose of collecting rent;
(6) That this honourable Court do hereby vest the actual and physical custody of the minors in the petitioner herein. However, the respondent to have reasonable access to the minors;
(7) That this honourable Court do hereby direct the respondent to make a monthly payment of Kes.30,000.00 for the upkeep of the minors;
(8) That this honourable Court directs the respondent to provide alternative shelter for the minors together with their mother, the petitioner herein;
(9) That the respondent has an obligation for the education, both madrasa and school, towards the minors;
(10) That the respondent also has an obligation to facilitate the medication of the minors whenever the need arises; and
(11) That each party bears its own costs.
2. The appellant, the petitioner in the cause before the Kadhi Court, was aggrieved by the said decision and filed an appeal against the said determination. She raised nine grounds of appeal, of which the following are the most relevant at this point:-
2. That the honorable Kadhi erred in law and in fact, in finding for the respondent with regard to declaring the house at Kadzandani erected on Plot No 259/Section II/MN Bamburi as matrimonial property despite overwhelming evidence produced by the appellant.
3.That the honourable Kadhi erred in law and in fact, in failing to find that there was no contribution on the part of the respondent in respect of Plot No 259/section II/MN Bamburi and two double plots at Bombolulu Estate Mombasa; and
7.That the learned Kadhi erred in law and, in fact, in delving into matters that were outside his jurisdiction by making a determination pertaining to the custody of the children.
3. The appellant/respondent filed a Notice of Motion dated 27th November 2023, vide which she sought a stay of execution of the impugned decision of the honourable Principal Kadhi. The application was opposed by the respondent/Applicant.
4. Upon hearing the parties, I delivered a ruling on 15th March 2024 in which I found that the application for stay of execution had merit and ordered that the “execution the orders issued by Kadhi on 19th October 2023 is hereby stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.”
5. At the time of delivery of my decision, I directed that the Record of Appeal be filed within 30 days of the said date, and that the appeal would be canvassed by written submissions. I noted during the subsequent mentions that there was a pending appeal between the same parties, being High Court Family Appeal No E019 of 2024. I directed that I would near both appeals concurrently.
6. On 29th July 2024, the respondent/applicant filed the instant application. The orders he seeks, so far as relevant, are :-
3. That pending the hearing and determination of the appeal herein, this honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of temporary injunction restraining the appellant, other by herself, her principals, agents, servants and or anyone else from collecting rent from the matrimonial property;
4. that this honourable Court be pleased to order NAIM MAJADA AGENCIES, the rent collection agent duly appointed by the Kadhi for purposes of collecting rent from the matrimonial property, to collect rent forthwith;
5. That this honourable Court be pleased to issue orders for the appellant to provide a full inventory and statement of account for the rent proceeds collected from the matrimonial property from the period between 19th October 2023, the dated of the judgment from the trial Court, to date;
6. that this honorable Court be pleased to issue any other or further orders/directions in the interest of justice herein
7. that costs of his application be in the cause
7. The application is based on the affidavit sworn by the respondent/applicant on 29th July 2024 and also on the grounds stated in the body of the motion. Briefly stated, the respondent/applicant averred that the judgment of the court below directed the appellant/respondent not to collect from the matrimonial property. When the parties failed to agree on which agent should collect rent the Court identified an agent. Following this Court\'s issuance of the stay order, the appellant/respondent had been exclusively collecting rent from the matrimonial property to the exclusion of the respondent/applicant and had failed to account for the same. The respondent deemed this unfair as he has a share in the matrimonial property.
8. The respondent/applicant averred that the estate agent appointed by Hon Kadhi be allowed to collect rent and account for it. He stated that the rent income exceeded Kes.300,000.00, which was more than what the appellant/respondent was to be paid by the respondent/applicant pursuant to the judgment of the Hon Kadhi as maintenance. Regarding the maintenance of the children, the respondent/applicant stated that he was ready and willing to comply with the maintenance orders issued by the Court. He stated that if the appellant/respondent continued to collect rent, he would be prejudiced.
9. The respondent/applicant attached to his application the judgment of the Court below the decrees, the letter dated 1 November 2023, and the order dated 8 December 2023 issued by the Kadhi Court.
10. The application is opposed. The appellant/respondent filed a replying affidavit which she swore on 31st July 2024. The appellant/respondent stated that this Court stayed the judgment of the Court below. He annexed a copy of the order vide which stay was given. She deposed that the rent collected from the premises was used to sustain and maintain the children, whom she said had been abandoned by the respondent/applicant and to whom he provided little help towards their upkeep. The rent, she averred, paid for school fees, school-related expenses, food, clothing and medical needs.
11. The appellant/respondent averred that without the rental income, she would not be able to provide food, clothing, medical attention, and a stable home. She further averred that she lived in constant fear of the respondent/applicant forcefully evicting her and the children from the house they currently live in.
12. She denied that the house belonged to the respondent/applicant. According to her, she has the right to deal with the rental income and also has a say regarding the person who should collect it. She stated that the issue of ownership of the property is a serious issue that can only be determined on appeal. Thus, she urged that I dismiss the appeal.
13. I heard the application on 6th August 2024. Ms Jadi, learned counsel for the respondent/applicant, submitted that her client was seeking temporary injunctive relief to prevent the appellant/respondent from collecting rent from the matrimonial property. Counsel gave the history of the matter up to the point this Court issued orders of stay of execution of the judgment of the Hon Kadhi.
14. Ms Jadi submitted that the appellant/respondent was collecting rent amounting to over Kes.300,000.00, which amount exceeds what she was entitled to get pursuant to the judgment of the Kadhi and the Children’s Court, which gave her Kes.30,000.00 and Kes.80,000.00, respectively, which amounts are cumulatively, far less than what she is getting as rent every month. She further submitted that her client had no problem with the appellant/ respondent remaining in the matrimonial home. The respondent/applicant’s complaint was with rent collection by the appellant/respondent. He expressed his readiness to provide for the children. It was submitted that the appellant/respondent made no direct contribution towards the construction of the house.
15. The application was opposed. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent. Mr Obonyo submitted that this Court delivered its decision on 15th March 2024, vide which it stayed the decision of the Hon Kadhi pending the determination of the appeal. Counsel submitted that the instant application sought to grant the respondent/applicant a second bite of the cherry. It was urged that the decision of the Children\'s Court was anchored on section 8 of the Children Act and Article 53 of the Constitution. Mr Obonyo argued that the respondent/applicant hadn’t shown that he had contributed in any manner towards the children\'s upkeep since 2019.
16. It was urged that directions on the hearing of the appeal had been complied with. In the circumstances, counsel urged the application was unmeritorious, repetitive and a waste of the court’s time. It was further urged that the cornerstone of this application formed the pillar of the appeal and that if I allowed the application, I would predetermine the appeal. I was, therefore, urged to dismiss it.
17. In response, Ms Jadi submitted that her client had not previously sought an injunction. She prayed that the agent already appointed by the Kadhi be permitted to collect rent as the appellant/respondent was already collecting too much rent. Counsel submitted that parental responsibility was joint and equal and that, in this instance, the appellant/respondent hadn’t shown what she was doing to take care of the children. She thus prayed that I allow the application.
18. I have considered the Notice of Motion dated 29 July 2024, the affidavit in support and the annexures thereto, the replying affidavit sworn on 31 July 2024, and the oral submissions of the parties. I must now determine whether the application has merit.
19. To do this, I must distil the issues in contention herein and determine them. Having done so, I find the issues to be:-
1. Whether having issued a stay pending appeal, the court may issue an injunction pending appeal; and
2. Whether, if it can do so, there is justification for issuance of an injunction pending appeal.
20. The decision of the Hon Kadhi dealt with both matrimonial property disputes and the maintenance of the children. Counsel for the respondent/applicant submitted that the effect of my ruling was that an injustice was visited on her client as the appellant/respondent was allowed to collect an amount far in excess of what the Children\'s Court and the Kadhi Court granted her.
21. Is the application res judicata$1 In my view, the res judicata doctrine does not apply. In matters relating to children, the Court is required by Article 53(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and section 8 of the Children Act to consider the best interest of the children. Further, Article 159(2) (e) of the Constitution states that Courts must administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities.
22. In ANM vs MN [2016]eKLR M Muigai J held that:-
“24.The application is not res judicata because
a. matters relating to children are determined on the basis of the best interest of the child which are paramount as espoused in article 53(3) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
b. Res judicata is not applicable to children matters as it is not expressly provided for in the Children’s Act, 2001…”
23. In the circumstances, I find and hold that I can hear and determine this application, notwithstanding that I had heard and determined the application for stay.
24. Should an injunction be pending an appeal issue$2 The principles guiding the issuance of injunctions pending appeal were discussed by the Court in Patricia Njeri & 3 others –vs- National Museum of Kenya [2004]eKLR. In the said case Visram J (as he then was) stated that
“In the Venture Capital case the Court of Appeal said that an order for injunction pending appeal is a discretionary matter. The discretion must, however, be “exercised judicially and not in whimsical or arbitrary fashion.” This discretion is guided by certain principles some of which are as follows:
(a) The discretion will be exercised against an Applicant whose appeal is frivolous (See Madhupaper International Limited vs Kerr (1985) KLR 840 (cited in Venture Capital ). The Applicant must state that a reasonable argument can be put forward in support of his appeal (J. K. Industries vs KCB (1982 – 88) KLR 1088 (also cited in Venture Capital)
. (b) The discretion should be refused where it would inflict greater hardship than it would avoid (See Madhupaper supra).
(c) The Applicant must show that to refuse the injunction would render his appeal nugatory (See Butt vs Rent Restriction Tribunal (1982) KLR 417 (cited also in Venture Capital ).
(d) The Court should also be guided by the principles in Giella vs Cassman Brown & Company Ltd (1973) EA 358 as set out in the case of Shitukha Mwamodo & Others (1986) KLR 445 (also cited in Venture Capital ).”
25. The appeal filed herein is not frivolous. This Court has already admitted the appeal. The Court has also perused the Hon Kadhi\'s determination and is of the opinion that the issues raised are weighty and call for determination on merit.
26. Would allowing the application inflict great hardship on the appellant/respondent$3 Whereas this is a distinct possibility, the difficulty can be mitigated by carefully calibrated orders that ensure that the appellant/respondent receives the support the lower Courts granted her without unduly prejudicing the interest of the respondent/applicant.
27. I am of the view that if the application is denied it may not be possible for the respondent/applicant to recover the amounts collected by the appellant/respondent, and used by her, should he be ultimately successful.
28. The Hon Kadhi and the Children Court have assessed the quantum of maintenance they think would sustain the appellant/respondent. The said amounts are useful guides to this court.
29. The upshot of the foregoing is that I am persuaded that an order of injunction, carefully calibrated so as not to occasion the appellant/respondent hardship, ought to issue.
30. The orders that commend themselves to me therefor are:-
1. Pending the determination of the appeal an order of injunction is hereby issued restraining the appellant, her principals, agents and or servants from collecting rent from the houses in Kadzandani area, Plot No 259/Section II/MN (Lakeview Estate), Phase 6, situated at Bamburi and two plots at Bombolulu Estate;
2. The rent with respect to the said properties shall be collected by Naim Najadh Agencies and deposited in Court less:-
(1) Kes50,000.00, every month ordered by the Children\'s Court, which shall be paid directly to the appellant/respondent on or before the 5th day of every month;
(2) Kes.30,000.00, every month ordered by the Kadhi’s Court, which shall be paid directly to the appellant/respondent on or before the 5th day of every month;
(3) Kes.3,500.00, every month, for purchase of clothes for the children, which shall be paid directly to the appellant/respondent on or before the 5th day of every month.
3. The respondent/applicant shall pay school fees, school-related expenses, and medical costs of the minors whenever they fall due;
4. The appellant/respondent shall remain in the penthouse at Kadzandani matrimonial home until the appeal is determined; and
5. In the interest of justice, the appeal in this matter shall be fast-tracked.
31. As this is a family matter I make no orders as to costs.
32. Orders accordingly.
Dated and signed at Mombasa this 18th day of September 2024. Delivered virtually via Microsoft TEAMS.