High Court: Child Maintenance Must Be Shared Fairly by Capable Parents

A High Court ruling in Nairobi has clarified that child maintenance obligations must be shared fairly between parents where both have the financial ability to contribute.

The decision was delivered in JNM v LGM (Appeal E107 of 2024) [2025], an appeal arising from a dispute between separated parents with two children and broadly similar incomes. After the relationship ended, the mother moved with the children from Kilimani to Ongata Rongai.

A magistrate’s court later ordered the father to pay most of the children’s expenses, including school fees, transport and clothing, placing the greater share of financial responsibility on him. The father challenged the ruling, arguing that the court had failed to consider shared parental responsibility and had unfairly required him to absorb higher transport costs caused by the relocation.

The appeal was heard by Justice Helene Namisi, who found that the lower court had not properly applied the law on equal parental duties under the Constitution and relevant statutes. In a judgment delivered on 5 December 2025, Justice Namisi stated that parental equality extends beyond access and decision-making to include financial contribution. 

She held that maintenance orders should be reasonable and proportionate, reflecting the actual capacity of each parent to provide for the children.

The court ruled that where both parents are economically capable, expenses must be divided fairly. It also held that additional costs resulting from unilateral decisions, such as moving the children further from their school, should not automatically be imposed on the other parent.

On that basis, the court revised the maintenance arrangements. Under the new orders, the father is responsible for school fees and related educational costs, including lunch and activity charges. 

The mother is required to cover the children’s daily transport to and from school and to provide clothing while they are in her care. Both parents must maintain medical insurance for the children and share school holidays equally.

The judgment also addressed custody arrangements. The court rejected the mother’s application for full custody and reaffirmed that joint legal custody remains the default position unless clear reasons justify a different outcome. 

Justice Namisi emphasised that parental responsibility should not be assigned on the basis of gender, but on constitutional principles of equality and the best interests of the child.