Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedCivil Appeal (Application) No. 83 of 2020· [2021] KECA 1081 (KLR)

Pgm & 1 other v Ogm

Court of Appeal
29 January 2021
2,938 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal let grandparents keep custody of a six-year-old girl pending appeal, prioritising the child's stability over the High Court's judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nyeri (Ouko, P, Nambuye and Okwengu, JJ.A) on a Notice of Motion dated 21st August 2020 brought under section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010, seeking stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court at Kerugoya (Gitari, J) delivered on 18th May 2020 and of the ruling of 14th August 2020 dismissing the applicants' stay application before that court. The dispute concerns the custody, care and control of a six-year-old girl who, since her birth and her mother's death, has lived with her maternal grandparents, the applicants. The High Court had reversed the trial magistrate's dismissal of the biological father's custody claim and entered judgment for him. The Court first rejected the respondent's objection that the application was incompetent for failure to annex certified copies of the decree and orders, holding that no Rule 5(2)(b) principle imposes such a requirement. Applying the twin principles, it found the intended appeal arguable on the minor's six-year residence with the applicants and the absence of exceptional circumstances for the change of custody. On nugatory-ness, the court held the welfare of the minor paramount and preserved the status quo. It disallowed prayer 3 as arising from a negative order but allowed prayer 4, staying execution of the High Court judgment with the minor remaining in the applicants' custody pending the appeal, directed the Deputy Registrar to facilitate filing of the appeal within ninety days, and ordered costs of the ruling to abide the appeal's outcome. An interim order of temporary stay and interim custody had been issued on 5th November 2020 with reasons reserved, which this ruling now renders.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competence of the application for failure to annex certified copies of the decree and orders

Holding

The application was properly before the court, being anchored on two notices of appeal against the judgment and the ruling, and no principle under Rule 5(2)(b) requires annexure of the impugned decree or orders.

Reasoning

The court found notices of appeal dated 29th May 2020 and 17th August 2020 annexed to the application. Since none of the crystallised principles governing Rule 5(2)(b) applications requires a party to annex certified copies of the decree or orders, the respondent's objection was rejected and the court proceeded to the merits of the application.

p. 3
02

Whether the intended appeal is arguable

Holding

The intended appeal was arguable, raising bona fide issues including the duration of the minor's residence with the applicants and the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying change of custody.

Reasoning

The applicants intended to argue that the Judge failed to appreciate that the minor had lived six uninterrupted years with them and that change of environment would impact negatively on her, and that custody of a young girl should not be given to the father absent exceptional circumstances. One arguable point suffices under the Rule 5(2)(b) jurisprudence.

p. 3
03

Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory, considering the welfare of the minor

Holding

Stay was granted to preserve the status quo of the minor's custody with the applicants, because the welfare of the minor is paramount and moving her again would destabilise her should the appeal succeed.

Reasoning

The substratum of the appeal is custody of a six-year-old girl who has been with her maternal grandparents since birth. Although the High Court decree could be reversed, the court held it prudent not to disturb the status quo, allowing the applicants to retain custody, care and control pending the appeal to avoid destabilising the minor.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application under Rule 5(2)(b) is not defeated by failure to annex certified copies of the decree or orders impugned; the twin principles of arguability and nugatory-ness must both be established
  • There is no jurisdiction to grant relief under Rule 5(2)(b) where the impugned order resulted in a dismissal or striking out, i.e. a negative order
  • Both twin principles - an arguable appeal and the nugatory-ness of the appeal - must be established before relief can issue under Rule 5(2)(b)
  • In proceedings involving a child, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, and in custody disputes the court may preserve the status quo pending appeal to avoid destabilising the child

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Prayer 3 disallowed as it arose from a negative order
  2. 2.Stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court at Kerugoya in High Court Appeal No. 40 of 2017 by Hon. L. W. Gitari issued on 18th May 2020 pending hearing and determination of the appeal, the minor remaining in the custody of the applicants until their appeal is heard and determined
  3. 3.The Deputy Registrar of the High Court appealed from directed to provide necessary documents to the applicants to enable them file the intended appeal within ninety days from the date of the ruling
  4. 4.Costs of the ruling shall abide the outcome of the appeal
On appeal from
High Court at Kerugoya
Kerugoya HCCA No. 40 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap 9 Laws of Kenya and Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Pgm & 1 other v Ogm", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Appeal (Application) No. 83 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/1081/eng@2021-01-29

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.