(IN THE MATTER OF JK, RN AND EW (MINORS))
RULING
1. The application before court is the one dated 27 th May 2026. In the said application, the Applicant seeks for the following orders against the Respondent:
i. Pending the hearing and determination of this application, there be a stay of execution of the ruling and orders delivered on 26th May 2026 in MCCC No. 75 of 2012 at Kitale Chief Magistrate's Court.
ii. Pending the hearing and determination of the appeal herein, there be a stay of attachment, proclamation, valuation, auction, sale, transfer or any further execution in respect of Land Parcel Numbers: West Pokot/Siyoi "A"/5492 West Pokot/Siyoi "A"/5496 West Pokot/Siyoi "A"/5498 Costs of this application be in the cause.
iii. Costs of this application be in cause .
2. The application was served on the Respondent and they filed a Replying Affidavit dated 3 rd June 2026.
3. Briefly, this is a long running matter between the parties herein, the subject being the minors borne of the two disputants herein. The record indicates there have been several applications in this matter and the core aspect remain unresolved, being the payments of the sums ordered by the court for the maintenance of the three minors herein.
4. They culminated in the two applications dated 21 st November 2025 and 27 th March 2026 . The trial court, by a ruling delivered on the 26 th May 2026 , the Court dismissed both applications. The applications had sought in the first instance to join the Interested Parties into the proceedings and secondly to stay the execution of the decree issued by the trial court.
5. I have considered the present application and the averments made both in support and opposition to the application. I have also looked at the history of the matter and the previous rulings of the High Court.
6. I note that the Applicant, save for stating that the Interested Parties purchased the cited parcels of land and they have settled and developed the same, save for the completion of the purchase processes, has not made any offer on how to settle the long standing decretal sums ordered by the trial court. It is noteworthy that this matter has been in the courts since 2012 and the matter involves children.
7. As correctly stated by the trial court in the ruling of 26 th May 2026, the Constitution at Article 53 (2) enjoins the courts to place the best interest of the child at the core of it s consideration when determining matters involving children. It then begs the question, understanding the directives of the court, and having proceeded to dispose of the cited properties without making any commitment to cater for the needs of the children herein especially in view of the determination of the trial court, should the court really come to his aid?
8. While the court notes that the Applicant has alleged and disputed the paternity of the children and has sought for the court to review its previous orders, the Applicant is under a duty to ensure compliance with the courts orders. Unless and until the orders are set aside, they remain valid orders that the Applicant has a duty to comply with. The Applicant cannot eat his cake and have it.
9. I will in full consideration of the circumstances in this case determine as follows:
a. That the Applicant deposits a sum of Kshs. 200,000.00 with the Respondent within 21 days of this order.
b. In default, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed with the execution process herein.
c. For the avoidance of doubt, this order does not stop the Applicant or the Interested Parties from pursuing an appeal against the ruling dated 26 th May 2026.
d. Costs to be in the cause .
Dated, signed and delivered virtually via Microsoft Teams this 6 th Day of August 2026.
RULING
1. The application before court is the one dated 27 th May 2026. In the said application, the Applicant seeks for the following orders against the Respondent:
i. Pending the hearing and determination of this application, there be a stay of execution of the ruling and orders delivered on 26th May 2026 in MCCC No. 75 of 2012 at Kitale Chief Magistrate's Court.
ii. Pending the hearing and determination of the appeal herein, there be a stay of attachment, proclamation, valuation, auction, sale, transfer or any further execution in respect of Land Parcel Numbers: West Pokot/Siyoi "A"/5492 West Pokot/Siyoi "A"/5496 West Pokot/Siyoi "A"/5498 Costs of this application be in the cause.
iii. Costs of this application be in cause .
2. The application was served on the Respondent and they filed a Replying Affidavit dated 3 rd June 2026.
3. Briefly, this is a long running matter between the parties herein, the subject being the minors borne of the two disputants herein. The record indicates there have been several applications in this matter and the core aspect remain unresolved, being the payments of the sums ordered by the court for the maintenance of the three minors herein.
4. They culminated in the two applications dated 21 st November 2025 and 27 th March 2026 . The trial court, by a ruling delivered on the 26 th May 2026 , the Court dismissed both applications. The applications had sought in the first instance to join the Interested Parties into the proceedings and secondly to stay the execution of the decree issued by the trial court.
5. I have considered the present application and the averments made both in support and opposition to the application. I have also looked at the history of the matter and the previous rulings of the High Court.
6. I note that the Applicant, save for stating that the Interested Parties purchased the cited parcels of land and they have settled and developed the same, save for the completion of the purchase processes, has not made any offer on how to settle the long standing decretal sums ordered by the trial court. It is noteworthy that this matter has been in the courts since 2012 and the matter involves children.
7. As correctly stated by the trial court in the ruling of 26 th May 2026, the Constitution at Article 53 (2) enjoins the courts to place the best interest of the child at the core of it s consideration when determining matters involving children. It then begs the question, understanding the directives of the court, and having proceeded to dispose of the cited properties without making any commitment to cater for the needs of the children herein especially in view of the determination of the trial court, should the court really come to his aid?
8. While the court notes that the Applicant has alleged and disputed the paternity of the children and has sought for the court to review its previous orders, the Applicant is under a duty to ensure compliance with the courts orders. Unless and until the orders are set aside, they remain valid orders that the Applicant has a duty to comply with. The Applicant cannot eat his cake and have it.
9. I will in full consideration of the circumstances in this case determine as follows:
a. That the Applicant deposits a sum of Kshs. 200,000.00 with the Respondent within 21 days of this order.
b. In default, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed with the execution process herein.
c. For the avoidance of doubt, this order does not stop the Applicant or the Interested Parties from pursuing an appeal against the ruling dated 26 th May 2026.
d. Costs to be in the cause .
Dated, signed and delivered virtually via Microsoft Teams this 6 th Day of August 2026.