The High Court has delivered a landmark judgment reinforcing the principle that both parents bear equal responsibility in providing for their children, regardless of gender, custody arrangements, or post-separation dynamics.
In the case of JNM v LGM, the court considered an appeal by a father challenging a lower court ruling that had placed the bulk of child-related financial obligations on him following separation. Both parents were medical doctors earning comparable salaries, yet the trial court ordered the father to meet school fees, transport, clothing, and other upkeep costs.
The father argued that the mother had unilaterally relocated the children far from their former home, significantly increasing school transport costs — expenses arising from decisions he neither made nor consented to.
Court Draws Clear Line Between Maintenance and Personal Decisions
In its judgment, the High Court emphasized that shared parental responsibility does not amount to financial punishment of one parent. The court ruled that transport costs arising from a unilateral relocation cannot automatically be imposed on the other parent, describing such expenses as consequences of personal choice rather than core child maintenance.
“Maintenance must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to the circumstances of both parents,” the court observed.
This reasoning aligns with the holding in ZAK v MA & Another [2013] eKLR, where the High Court stressed that child maintenance orders must be fair and commensurate with each parent’s means, rather than based on assumptions tied to gender or custody.
Earning Capacity, Not Gender, Must Guide Contribution
The court further held that earning as a father does not translate into sole financial responsibility, especially where the other parent has comparable income. Where parents earn similarly, the court stated, contribution must be balanced, realistic, and reflective of actual capacity.
This principle echoes the decision in JOO v MBO [2015] eKLR, where the court ruled that parental responsibility is joint and equal, and that courts must consider the income, obligations, and decisions of both parents before assigning financial duties.
The High Court also warned against emotionally driven or retaliatory maintenance orders, reiterating that the purpose of child support is the welfare of the child — not punishment of a parent.Relocation and Increased Costs: Who Bears the Burden?
On the issue of relocation, the court reaffirmed that a parent who unilaterally alters the living or schooling arrangements of a child must bear the foreseeable financial consequences of that decision.
This position finds support in EWN v ZWN [2017] eKLR, where the court held that a parent cannot vary a child’s lifestyle or location and automatically transfer the resulting costs to the other parent without consultation or consent.
Legal Experts: Judgment Aligns with Established Jurisprudence
Legal practitioners say the ruling consolidates and clarifies existing jurisprudence rather than creating new law.
According to family law advocate Peter Mwangi, the decision strengthens judicial consistency.
“This judgment reinforces what courts have said before — that parental responsibility under Article 53 of the Constitution and the Children Act is shared. It rejects the outdated notion that fathers are default financiers,” Mwangi said.
Advocate Ruth Njeri added that the ruling is consistent with Section 24 of the Children Act, which places equal parental responsibility on both parents, whether married or not.
“Maintenance must serve the child’s best interests, as emphasized in Bhutt v Bhutt [2014] eKLR. It cannot be used as leverage or a financial weapon after separation,” she noted.
A Broader Shift in Family Law
Legal observers say the decision reflects a growing judicial trend toward fairness, equality, and evidence-based maintenance orders, grounded in:
Article 53(1)(e) of the Constitution
Sections 23–27 of the Children Act
Established High Court jurisprudence
As courts increasingly reject gender stereotypes and automatic assumptions, the ruling in JNM v LGM is expected to influence both trial courts and mediation processes nationwide.
Parenthood, the High Court has reaffirmed, is shared and so is responsibility.
