Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
High CourtAllowedAdoption Cause No. 46 of 2018 (OS)· [2019] KEHC 1652 (KLR)

In the Matter of the Children's Act No. 8 of 2001 and In the Matter of Adoption of SM by BKK & HKG

High Court of Kenya
28 November 2019
732 words in judgment
View original judgment Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Meeting legal criteria and proving the adoption benefits the child is key to securing an adoption order in Kenya.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an Originating Summons dated 5 April 2018 under the Children's Act No. 8 of 2001 in which BKK and HKG, a childless couple married under customary law in 1998, sought authority to adopt Baby SM, a girl presumed born on 1 July 2012 who was abandoned by her parents at age 4 in Kiambiu, Nairobi. The child was committed to Imani Children's Home as a child in need of care and protection on 13 April 2017, declared free for adoption on 15 November 2017 after efforts to trace her parents failed, and placed with the applicants for foster care from 19 November 2017 pending formal adoption. By a ruling of 21 June 2018 the court appointed BN as guardian ad litem and required the guardian and the Director of Children's Services to conduct social enquiries into the applicants' fitness. Both reports, filed in September and October 2018, highly recommended the applicants, who were found to be businesspeople aged 46 and 48 with adequate income and an owned home in Embakasi. The proposed legal guardians RNK and JWK consented to appointment. ALI-ARONI J found that the applicants met the legal requirements and that the adoption was in the child's best interest. The court authorised the adoption, renamed the child SMK, appointed RNK and JWK as legal guardians, directed the Registrar General to enter the adoption in the adoption register, and discharged the guardian ad litem. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Suitability and fitness of the applicants to adopt

Holding

The applicants met the legal requirements and were found suitable and fit to adopt the child.

Reasoning

The court relied on social enquiry reports by the guardian ad litem and the Director of Children's Services, both of which highly recommended the applicants. The applicants were a married couple of 21 years with no child of their own, adequate income, and owned their residence in Embakasi.

p. 1
02

Best interest of the child

Holding

The adoption was in the child's best interest as she had found parents providing a home, love, care and attention.

Reasoning

The child, presumed born on 1 July 2012, was abandoned at age 4, committed to Imani Children's Home as a child in need of care and protection, declared free for adoption after efforts to trace her parents failed, and had been in foster care with the applicants since 19 November 2017.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An adoption order may issue where the applicants meet the legal requirements and the adoption serves the best interest of the child.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicants BKK & HKG be and are hereby authorised to adopt Baby SM
  2. 2.The child's name will upon this adoption be SMK
  3. 3.RNK & JWK be and are hereby appointed legal guardians of the child now to be known as SMK
  4. 4.The Registrar General do enter this adoption in the adoption register
  5. 5.The guardian ad litem be and is hereby discharged from the duties earlier conferred upon her by the court

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Children's ActNo. 8 of 2001
Jurisdiction invoked
Children's Act No. 8 of 2001 (adoption jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "In the Matter of the Children's Act No. 8 of 2001 and In the Matter of Adoption of SM by BKK & HKG", Case Analysis (2019). Adoption Cause No. 46 of 2018 (OS). Source: 

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