REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Adoption Cause 15 of 2003 IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN’S ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION RULES L.N. 248/1978 & L.N.232 OF 1978 AND IN THE MATTER OF BABY F AN INFANT JOINT STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ADAPTATION ORDER JUDGMENT The applicants are married under the African Marriage and Divorce Act (Cap 151) on 5th April, 1997. They are born in 1962 and 1967 respectively. The 1st applicant is an Instructor with Isinya Youth Polytechnic [paticulars withheld] while the 2 nd applicant is a housewife and a farmer. They have satisfactory income. The couple was unable to give birth to their own biological children and hence their need to adopt a needy child so that their mutual need to have complete and loving family is realized. They have been shown to be mature, physically, mentally, and socially fit to adopt the child, and are able to give love and warmth to a child who has been offered for adoption by her biological mother and is declared free for adoption on 27th September, 2006. In the reports filed by Child Welfare Society, Director of Children Department and Guardian adlitem, it is observed that, the child is healthy, happy and properly loved and cared for by the applicants as an only child. Their extended families have also accepted her as such. The applicants have understood and have no objections as to the child’s right of inheritance. All concerned have recommended the adoption and I have no objection to be line with them. In the premises, I order that the applicants be allowed to adopt the child herein who shall be known as SW born on 28th September, 1996. I discharge the guardian ad litem. The aforesaid orders be entered in the Adoption Register. Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 8th day of May, 2009. K.H. RAWAL JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.