In a notable turn of events at the Maralal Law Courts, a mother who moved the court seeking financial support for her minor child ended up temporarily losing physical custody to the very man she had accused of neglecting parental responsibilities.
This is after Senior Principal Magistrate Temba Sitati issued a judgment that both affirmed the father's obligation to provide child support and simultaneously placed the child in his care for a nine-month period.
The mother, with her identity protected under the name, MPL, approached the court in February 2025 seeking several reliefs, including full physical custody of the minor, supervised access by the defendant (father), and monthly child maintenance of Sh10,500.
She also sought that the defendant cater for the child’s school expenses, medical care, and other basic needs.
At the heart of her suit was the claim that the defendant, named as LL, had allegedly neglected his duties as a father and failed to contribute meaningfully to the upbringing of their child, born in 2023.
However, when the matter came up for hearing, the dynamics shifted.
MPL told the court she had no stable employment and was struggling to support the child.
Her turning point came when she was successfully recruited into the Kenya Prisons Service in April 2025.
During cross-examination, she admitted she was to report to the Prisons College for mandatory nine-month training and would receive no salary during that period.
“In re-examination, the plaintiff (Mother) told the court that she was recruited as a Prisons Service Constable on 30/04/2025 during the national recruitment and was shortly joining the college for training. She pointed out that during the 9-month training, no salary was payable to the recruit,” part of the judgement read.
She conceded that the child could not accompany her during the training, and she had no clear plan on how custody would be managed during her absence.
On the other side, the defendant admitted having made limited financial contributions towards the child's welfare, with the last mobile money transfer made in November 2024.
He claimed, however, that he had provided other forms of support, including toys and clothes.
These claims were largely undermined during cross-examination, where it emerged that the receipts he presented could not be linked directly to the child in question.
Despite these gaps in support, the court determined that the father would assume temporary physical custody of the child during the mother's training period.
The court took judicial notice that infants are not permitted to reside with parents undergoing training at the Prisons College and reasoned that the father, who had other children in his care, could provide a more stable and familiar environment for the minor during that time.
“The father has other children who will provide good company to the minor,” the court stated, emphasising that the decision was made in the best interest of the child, a principle entrenched in the Children’s Act.
Notably, the court affirmed that parental responsibility is shared equally and ordered both parents to contribute equally to the child’s needs, assessing the reasonable monthly support at Sh10,500.
The father’s share of Sh5,250, however, was temporarily suspended until the mother completed her training and resumed full custody.
The court also dismissed the parental responsibility agreement signed solely by the father, ruling that it held no legal weight since the mother had not signed it.
“Nothing flows from an agreement signed by only one party,” Magistrate Sitati remarked, nullifying the defendant’s argument that the mother was bound by its terms.
Ultimately, the court granted joint legal custody, but with actual custody alternating based on the mother’s training schedule.
“Subsequently, actual custody shall revert to the mother once she has completed training and is deployed to a station where she can comfortably take up the physical custody.
She did not indicate how she was going to navigate the custody issue while in training. For the reversion of actual custody, the parties have to return to court for the orders to be effected,” the court ruled.
Both parties were ordered to bear their legal costs, and a right of appeal was granted within 30 days.
