1. By Chamber Summons application brought under Certificate of Urgency dated 2nd July 2024, the Applicant sought for orders that the 1st Respondent produces the body of the subject minor and that he be restrained from removing the child out of the Courts jurisdiction.
2. The Application was supported by the grounds on the face of the application and the affidavit sworn by Elseba Milicent Akinyi sworn on 26th August 2024.
3. The grounds and the averments in the supporting affidavit were to the effect that the minor was placed at Shepherds Children Home in Uriri which is managed by the Applicant’s mother on 16th July 2017 by the Children’s Officer Rongo Sub-County. That subsequently the Applicant took over the care of the minor who was by then a toddler less than one year as his guardian and took care f him as her own son until on 14th May 2024 when the minor was taken away by the Children Officer and a police officer from Uriri Police Station who was in civilian clothes and did not identify himself.
4. That when the Applicant followed to know why the minor was being held in custody she was not given any explanation even when the minor was wailing and calling her to help him.
5. The Applicant averred that she made several attempts to locate the minor without success and the 1st Respondent refused to book her complaint in the OB. She was therefore forced to seek the intervention of Independent Police Oversight Authority to have her complainant booked and investigated.
6. The Applicant sought that the Respondents in whose custody the minor is being kept should be compelled to disclose his location as his continued detention is arbitrary, unjustifiable and unlawful.
7. The application was opposed by the Replying Affidavit of Thomas Nyansiri the 2nd Respondent herein sworn on 30th September 2024. He averred that he was aware of the existence of Shepherds Childrens Home in Uriri and that its Director is Symphrose Adongo who is the mother of the Applicant.
8. The 2nd Respondents has also averred that the Applicant was not the one given custody of the minor who was under supervision of the Children Officer Rongo by the time he was placed in custody of the children home after he was picked in sugarcane plantation after being abandoned by the mother.
9. He further averred that the Applicant had made a series of complaints to them as to the mistreatment of children in the home including physical and emotional abuse; being denied food and being used as objects to attract donor funding that was not beneficial to them. That as a result of the complaints that investigations and inspection were conducted and it was concluded that the home does not meet the minimum standards to host children and it was recommended that it should be closed permanently.
10. The 2nd Respondent averred that he withdrew the minor on 14th May 2024 with the interest of keeping him safe and unaffected as he initiated the process of tracing the relatives of the other children who were placed in the home without proper admission procedures. He said he transferred the minor to a safer and conducive institution with the consent of Shepherd Children Home. The 2nd Respondent averred that he took the minor to the Police Station when the Applicant followed him to the officer and started making a lot of noise and saying that the minor was not going to be taken anywhere. He explained that the child was kept at the police station as the Applicant threatened to follow them to the institution where the child was to be admitted and they had to wait until she left and it was already dark in the night. He said the child was kept at the Child Protection Unit at the Police Station and was well fed until the following day when he was removed and committed to another home through a court order.
11. The 2nd Respondent annexed reports of the visit to the home on 3rd April 2024 and 15th April 2024 detailing investigations carried out and which led to the closure of the home and removal of the subject minor and committal to another institution.
12. This application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant filed her submissions dated 3rd March 2025 and urged the court to allow her application to have the subject minor produced in court so that the court can have an opportunity to interview him on his wellbeing and find out whether to place him under the care of the Applicant pending legal adoption whom he has known as his mother since he was placed in the home. She argued that the action of the Respondents was disruptive to the minor emotionally and psychologically.
13. The Applicant suspected that the people whose names appear in the birth certificate should be summoned as they may be behind the mysterious disappearance of the minor. She also argued that the court should declare that the rights of the minor were infringed and he is entitled to protection from the excesses of the Respondents.
The Respondent did not file any submissions and thus relied on the Replying Affidavit sworn in opposition to the application.
Analysis and Determination
14. Having considered the application dated 2nd July 2024 together with supporting affidavit and the Applicants submissions and having considered the 2nd Respondent’s Replying Affidavit, the issue for determination is whether the Applicant has satisfied the court for grant of the orders sought.
15. The Respondent has satisfactorily explained the circumstances under which the minor subject of these proceedings was withdrawn from Shepherds Children Home in his Replying affidavit and the two reports annexed to the affidavit. The minor was committed to the Home while awaiting tracing of his parents and/ or relatives but the tracing did not materialize. As a result of complaints made by the Applicant herein the 2nd Respondent conducted investigations and visited the home and found it fit to have the same closed for reasons the children in the home had no committal documents and the Applicant and the mother who is Director of the said home were using the children as pawns to solicit for funds for their own interest and not for the interest of the children.
16. The Applicant not being the proprietor of the Children’s home and not having applied to be a foster parent/ guardian or adoptive parent to the child cannot demand to have the child released to her on the basis she had taken care of him from when he was a toddler without proof of such claim in the form of an application to court or even a letter from the Children’s Officer allowing her to have custody of the said child.
17. Evidence that the child has now been committed to lawful custody of another institution by committal through court has been exhibited and this court finds that sufficient cause has been shown why the child cannot be released to the Applicant. The Applicant herein has no locus to claim the child when he was not put in her custody and she did not start the process of adopting him since he was committed to her mother’s home.
18. Based on the above findings the application is dismissed. Each party will bear their own costs of the application.
Dated, signed and delivered in Court this 12th day of June, 2025
2. The Application was supported by the grounds on the face of the application and the affidavit sworn by Elseba Milicent Akinyi sworn on 26th August 2024.
3. The grounds and the averments in the supporting affidavit were to the effect that the minor was placed at Shepherds Children Home in Uriri which is managed by the Applicant’s mother on 16th July 2017 by the Children’s Officer Rongo Sub-County. That subsequently the Applicant took over the care of the minor who was by then a toddler less than one year as his guardian and took care f him as her own son until on 14th May 2024 when the minor was taken away by the Children Officer and a police officer from Uriri Police Station who was in civilian clothes and did not identify himself.
4. That when the Applicant followed to know why the minor was being held in custody she was not given any explanation even when the minor was wailing and calling her to help him.
5. The Applicant averred that she made several attempts to locate the minor without success and the 1st Respondent refused to book her complaint in the OB. She was therefore forced to seek the intervention of Independent Police Oversight Authority to have her complainant booked and investigated.
6. The Applicant sought that the Respondents in whose custody the minor is being kept should be compelled to disclose his location as his continued detention is arbitrary, unjustifiable and unlawful.
7. The application was opposed by the Replying Affidavit of Thomas Nyansiri the 2nd Respondent herein sworn on 30th September 2024. He averred that he was aware of the existence of Shepherds Childrens Home in Uriri and that its Director is Symphrose Adongo who is the mother of the Applicant.
8. The 2nd Respondents has also averred that the Applicant was not the one given custody of the minor who was under supervision of the Children Officer Rongo by the time he was placed in custody of the children home after he was picked in sugarcane plantation after being abandoned by the mother.
9. He further averred that the Applicant had made a series of complaints to them as to the mistreatment of children in the home including physical and emotional abuse; being denied food and being used as objects to attract donor funding that was not beneficial to them. That as a result of the complaints that investigations and inspection were conducted and it was concluded that the home does not meet the minimum standards to host children and it was recommended that it should be closed permanently.
10. The 2nd Respondent averred that he withdrew the minor on 14th May 2024 with the interest of keeping him safe and unaffected as he initiated the process of tracing the relatives of the other children who were placed in the home without proper admission procedures. He said he transferred the minor to a safer and conducive institution with the consent of Shepherd Children Home. The 2nd Respondent averred that he took the minor to the Police Station when the Applicant followed him to the officer and started making a lot of noise and saying that the minor was not going to be taken anywhere. He explained that the child was kept at the police station as the Applicant threatened to follow them to the institution where the child was to be admitted and they had to wait until she left and it was already dark in the night. He said the child was kept at the Child Protection Unit at the Police Station and was well fed until the following day when he was removed and committed to another home through a court order.
11. The 2nd Respondent annexed reports of the visit to the home on 3rd April 2024 and 15th April 2024 detailing investigations carried out and which led to the closure of the home and removal of the subject minor and committal to another institution.
12. This application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant filed her submissions dated 3rd March 2025 and urged the court to allow her application to have the subject minor produced in court so that the court can have an opportunity to interview him on his wellbeing and find out whether to place him under the care of the Applicant pending legal adoption whom he has known as his mother since he was placed in the home. She argued that the action of the Respondents was disruptive to the minor emotionally and psychologically.
13. The Applicant suspected that the people whose names appear in the birth certificate should be summoned as they may be behind the mysterious disappearance of the minor. She also argued that the court should declare that the rights of the minor were infringed and he is entitled to protection from the excesses of the Respondents.
The Respondent did not file any submissions and thus relied on the Replying Affidavit sworn in opposition to the application.
Analysis and Determination
14. Having considered the application dated 2nd July 2024 together with supporting affidavit and the Applicants submissions and having considered the 2nd Respondent’s Replying Affidavit, the issue for determination is whether the Applicant has satisfied the court for grant of the orders sought.
15. The Respondent has satisfactorily explained the circumstances under which the minor subject of these proceedings was withdrawn from Shepherds Children Home in his Replying affidavit and the two reports annexed to the affidavit. The minor was committed to the Home while awaiting tracing of his parents and/ or relatives but the tracing did not materialize. As a result of complaints made by the Applicant herein the 2nd Respondent conducted investigations and visited the home and found it fit to have the same closed for reasons the children in the home had no committal documents and the Applicant and the mother who is Director of the said home were using the children as pawns to solicit for funds for their own interest and not for the interest of the children.
16. The Applicant not being the proprietor of the Children’s home and not having applied to be a foster parent/ guardian or adoptive parent to the child cannot demand to have the child released to her on the basis she had taken care of him from when he was a toddler without proof of such claim in the form of an application to court or even a letter from the Children’s Officer allowing her to have custody of the said child.
17. Evidence that the child has now been committed to lawful custody of another institution by committal through court has been exhibited and this court finds that sufficient cause has been shown why the child cannot be released to the Applicant. The Applicant herein has no locus to claim the child when he was not put in her custody and she did not start the process of adopting him since he was committed to her mother’s home.
18. Based on the above findings the application is dismissed. Each party will bear their own costs of the application.
Dated, signed and delivered in Court this 12th day of June, 2025