In re KA (Minor) (Children's Case E031 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 660 (KLR) (24 February 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 660 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE BUNGOMA LAW COURTS CHILDREN'S CASE E031 OF 2025 TO OMONO, SRM FEBRUARY 24, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF KA (MINOR) BETWEEN SNS (SUING AS THE NEXT FRIEND OF KA) ................................... APPLICANT AND CWB ....................................................................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. This ruling determines the Plaintifi/Applicant’s Notice to Show Cause dated 20th January 2026 requiring the Defendant/Respondent to show cause why his salary should not be attached to settle the monthly maintenance arrears of Kshs. 20,000/=. 2. The Defendant/Respondent was duly served with the Notice To Show Cause on 29th January 2026 as evidenced by the Afidavit of Service sworn by Moses Kuloba Keya on 05th February 2026. 3. The Defendant/Respondent neither responded to the Notice To Show Cause nor attended court on 17th February 2026 when the Notice To Show Cause came up for hearing. 4. The foregoing shows that the Defendant/Respondent has deliberately refused to comply with the monthly maintenance order issued by this court on 28th October 2025. Court orders are not mere suggestions to be respected by a party if and when they desire. This was well explained by the Court of Appeal in Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2015] KECA 945 (KLR), where the court observed thus: “ We reiterate here that court orders must be obeyed. Parties against whom such orders are made cannot be allowed to trash them with impunity. Obedience of Court orders is not optional, rather, it is mandatory and a person does not choose whether to obey a court order https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/660/eng@2026-02-24 1
page 1 of 3
or not. For as Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States of America once said:“No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not as a favour." The courts should not fold their hands in helplessness and watch as their orders are disobeyed with impunity left, right and centre. This would amount to abdication of our sacrosanct duty bestowed on us by the Constitution. The dignity, and authority of the Court must be protected, and that is why those who fiagrantly disobey them must be punished, lest they lead us all to a state of anarchy .We think we have said enough to send this important message across.” 5. Further, in Teachers Service Commission versus Kenya National Union of Teachers [KNUT] [2013] eKLR, the court stated thus on this issue: “ A court order is not a mere suggestion or an opinion or a point of view. It is a directive that is issued after much thought and with circumspection. It must therefore be complied with and it is in the interest of every person that this remains the case. To see it any other way is to open the door to chaos and anarchy and this Court will not be the one to open that door. If one is dissatisfied with an order of the court, the avenues for challenging it are also set out in the law. Defiance is not an option.” 6. The common thread running through the authorities above is that disobedience of a valid court order constitutes a mockery of the rule of law and the general administration of justice, which a court should not countenance. Therefore, the Defendant/Respondent must comply with the valid maintenance order issued by this court on 28th October 2025. 7. Section 101 of the Children Act permits a court to make an order for attachment of a party’s property/ income in settlement of maintenance arrears where the defaulting party has the means to pay but has willfully refused to pay the maintenance fees orders. 8. The Defendant/Respondent herein is a teacher at Sio Secondary School earning a monthly net income of Kshs. 20,750/= evidenced by his August 2025 pay slip. This demonstrates without doubt that the Defendant/Respondent has willfully refused to pay the monthly maintenance fees ordered by this court despite having the means to do so. 9. In the circumstances, the Defendant/Respondent’s employer must be ordered to settle the monthly maintenance fees arrears of Kshs. 20,000/=, and the subsequent monthly maintenance fees of Kshs. 8,000/=. Determination 10. For the reasons above, this court makes the following orders: a. 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 Plaintifi/Applicant b. 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 Plaintifi/Applicant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/660/eng@2026-02-24 2
page 2 of 3
c. 11. In the event the deductions in (a) and (b) above ofiend 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 Orders accordingly. READ, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT BUNGOMA THIS 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 T.O. OMONO SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATE In the presence of: Mr. Nabibia for the Plaintifi/Applicant C/A: Mr. Rioba https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/660/eng@2026-02-24 3
page 3 of 3