In re FM (Applicant) (Miscellaneous Application E372 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 577 (KLR) (Family) (29 January 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 577 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) FAMILY MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E372 OF 2025 HK CHEMITEI, J JANUARY 29, 2026 RULING 1. This ruling relates to the application dated 1st December, 2025 filed by the Applicant FM, seeking for orders that: 1. Spent. 2. This honourable court do issue an order that a paternity test be conducted between the Applicant and EM for the purposes of determining biological paternity and establishing kinship. 3. Upon a positive paternity result, an order do issue compelling the Registrar of Births and Deaths to rectify the birth records of EM, specifically his birth certificate No. 4XXXX1 to reflect the Applicant, FM, as his biological father. 4. The costs of this application be provided for. 2. The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavit sworn by FM on 1st December, 2025. 3. He avers inter alia that EM has been in a coma since 12th January, 2025 following a severe traumatic brain injury and blunt chest trauma, leaving him fully incapacitated and incapable of managing or protecting his own interests. He requires round-the-clock medical care, which he has been facilitating. E’s mother, who was his sole guardian and next of kin, is deceased, and there is presently no legally recognized person able to safeguard his interests, manage his afiairs or access funds due to him for his critical medical treatment, thereby necessitating his approach to court as next friend. 4. He avers that he has raised and cared for E since childhood, has at all times assumed full parental responsibility and is EM’s biological father although this relationship is not reflected in E’s birth certificate. He relies on documentary evidence, including E’s KRA PIN Certificate, which bears the name “Murugu EM,” to demonstrate acknowledgment of paternity. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/577/eng@2026-01-29 1
page 1 of 3
5. To conclusively establish his legal standing as father, guardian and next of kin, he seeks a court-ordered paternity test and subsequent rectification of E’s birth records, noting that the test is non-invasive, poses no risk given E’s condition and is the most reliable and legally admissible means of proving paternity. He expresses his full willingness to undergo the test. 6. He further depones that E is owed substantial sums of money, including unpaid salaries and benefits from his employer, Royal Associates Insurance Brokers Limited, where he is employed as Branch Manager - Coast Region, earning a gross salary of Kshs. 165,000/= under a contract dated 1st March, 2019, which obligations the employer has breached. 7. Additionally, E is owed Kshs.600,000/= advanced as a personal loan to his immediate supervisor. These funds are urgently required to meet E’s escalating medical expenses and his ability to pursue recovery on E’s behalf is contingent upon formal recognition of his legal standing. He contends that unless the orders sought are granted, E’s access to essential funds for his continued medical care and survival will be gravely prejudiced. 8. The application is not opposed and no written submissions have been filed. Analysis And Determination 9. I have carefully considered the application before the court and in particular the supporting affidavit. 10. Although the application is unopposed, it is the duty of the Court to nevertheless subject it to a merit evaluation in accordance with the applicable laws and principles. Indeed, in Gideon Sitelu Konchellah vs. Julius Lekakeny Ole Sunkuli & 2 others [2018] eKLR the Supreme Court of Kenya held that: “ …as a court of law, we have a duty in principle to look at what the application is about and what it seeks. It is not automatic that for any unopposed application, the Court will as a matter of cause grant the sought orders. It behooves the Court to be satisfied that prima facie, with no objection, the application is meritorious and the prayers may be granted. The Court is under a duty to look at the application and without making any inferences on facts point out any points of law, such as any jurisdictional impediment, which might render the application a non-starter. We see no such jurisdictional issue in the application before us. Hence we have proceeded to consider the facts before us as against the jurisprudence for grant of stay orders set by this Court…” 11. The case herein is special in the sense that the ward who is the subject of the matter is unable to verify the Applicant’s averments. The question of DNA analysis is a private matter securely insulated by our Constitution. It is not therefore as easy as the Applicant would wish the court to determine. 12. Reliance on the names alone is not sufficient to warrant the court issue DNA orders as prayed by the Applicant. 13. What I have been unable to understand also is the position of the ward’s wife. From the affidavit of the Applicant paragraph 15 he made mentioned of his wife who for all intent and purposes is not a party herein. 14. At the same time from the medical records exhibited before me the ward is over 53 years and there is no evidence that apart from the Applicant, he has a family or at all. 15. Consequently, I think to be fair and so as to remove any doubt there must be further evidence to support the prayers sought by the Applicant including any creditors and or debtors. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/577/eng@2026-01-29 2
page 2 of 3
16. On the same note the court would wish to have evidence of the assets and the accounts he has in any of the financial institutions for purposes of making any appropriate orders. 17. In the premises the application is held in abeyance pending the production by the Applicant of the following: (a) The list of debtors and creditors and any documentary evidence. (b) The list of his assets by way of documentary evidence. (c) Service of the application and the petition be made upon his wife and any other immediate interested parties. (d) The same be provided within 14 days from the date herein. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIDE VIDEO LINK THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026. H K CHEMITEI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/577/eng@2026-01-29 3
page 3 of 3