In re KA (Minor) (Children's Case E031 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 660 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court ordered a teacher's employer to deduct child maintenance arrears and monthly payments directly from his salary after he ignored a court order.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Enforcement of a maintenance order through attachment of salary
The court found that the Defendant/Respondent, a teacher earning a net monthly income of Kshs. 20,750/=, willfully refused to comply with the maintenance order of 28th October 2025 despite having the means, and ordered his employer to deduct the arrears and ongoing maintenance from his salary.
The Defendant/Respondent was duly served with the Notice to Show Cause but neither responded nor attended court on the hearing date. His August 2025 pay slip showed a net monthly income of Kshs. 20,750/=, demonstrating means to pay. Relying on authorities on obedience of court orders and section 101 of the Children Act, the court held that a court order is not a mere suggestion and must be enforced, and directed the employer to effect deductions, with liberty to spread them if they offend statutory attachment limits.
Obligation to obey court orders
Disobedience of a valid court order constitutes a mockery of the rule of law and the administration of justice and will not be countenanced.
The court relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited and the Teachers Service Commission v KNUT decision, which affirm that court orders are not mere suggestions, that obedience is mandatory, and that defiance is not an option where challenge avenues exist in law.
Compliance with statutory limits on salary deductions
If the ordered deductions offend the 2/3 rule, the employer may spread the deductions to comply with the law.
Recognising section 19 of the Employment Act and section 44(2)(viii) of the Civil Procedure Act, which restrict the proportion of salary that may be attached, the court built flexibility into the order so that the employer, the Teachers Service Commission, can lawfully implement the deductions over time rather than in a single attachment.
Legal principles established
#- Disobedience of a valid court order is not optional and courts must enforce their orders to protect their dignity and authority
- Under section 101 of the Children Act, a court may order attachment of a defaulting party's property or income for maintenance arrears where the party has the means to pay but willfully refuses
Court orders
#- 1.The Teachers Service Commission is ordered to deduct Kshs. 20,000/= being maintenance fees arrears from the Defendant/Respondent's salary and remit the same to an account to be provided by the Plaintiff/Applicant
- 2.The Teachers Service Commission is ordered to deduct Kshs. 8,000/= being the monthly maintenance fees from the Defendant/Respondent's monthly salary, and remit the same to an account to be provided by the Plaintiff/Applicant
- 3.In the event the deductions offend the 2/3 rule under section 19 of the Employment Act and section 44(2)(viii) of the Civil Procedure Act, the Teachers Service Commission will be at liberty to spread the deductions for compliance with the law
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 101 of the Children Act (attachment of property/income in settlement of maintenance arrears), arising from this court's maintenance order of 28th October 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "In re KA (Minor) (Children's Case E031 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 660 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/660/eng@2026-02-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.