What began as a family dispute over child maintenance and a contested plot in Isiolo has now evolved into a complex legal battle touching on paternity, land ownership and the limits of the Kadhi’s Court jurisdiction.
At the heart of the dispute is a court-ordered DNA test that the High Court says could determine the direction of the entire case.
Justice Sophie Chirchir ordered that RCG, her estranged husband ANG and their children undergo DNA testing at a laboratory in Meru.
The judge ruled that the issue of parental responsibility and maintenance could not fairly be resolved before questions surrounding the children’s paternity were conclusively addressed.
“It will not be fair to the respondent to drag him through these proceedings when he has expressed apprehension about the paternity of the children,” Justice Chirchir ruled.
The order came as the High Court suspended proceedings and interim directives issued by the Isiolo Kadhi’s Court in a protracted matrimonial dispute that has exposed the complicated intersection between family conflict, property ownership and constitutional rights.
Court documents show that the conflict between the couple has been simmering before the Isiolo Kadhi’s Court, where issues of maintenance, paternity and ownership of a disputed plot were all brought into one legal battle.
The dispute escalated after Principal Kadhi Gavava Awadh Mohammed issued interim orders on January 8, 2026 reviewing child maintenance arrangements and directing cancellation or revocation of ownership documents relating to the contested property.
However, RCG challenged the orders at the High Court, arguing that they were issued before parties had filed written submissions as earlier directed by the court.
She maintained that the Kadhi’s Court violated her constitutional right to a fair hearing and exceeded its mandate by issuing orders affecting ownership of land.
Her lawyers argued that disputes relating to title and ownership of land fall outside the jurisdiction of the Kadhi’s Court.
The case then took a dramatic turn when ANG defended the disputed orders by linking them to unresolved questions over paternity. According to him, the interim directives were necessary because RCG had allegedly failed to comply with earlier orders requiring DNA testing.
He argued that the contested property needed to be preserved pending resolution of the paternity dispute.
The High Court found that the appeal raised serious constitutional and legal questions deserving full hearing.
Justice Chirchir noted that one of the impugned orders involved the cancellation of ownership documents for immovable property, making the matter more than a simple matrimonial disagreement.
“The Appellant has raised two key issues, namely the jurisdiction of the Kadhi’s Court to determine issues of title to land or interest in land, and the right to be heard,” the judge ruled.
The court also observed that loss of land constituted substantial loss, justifying the suspension of the Kadhi’s Court proceedings, pending determination of the appeal.
Even so, the judge directed ANG to continue meeting the children’s educational and medical expenses until the dispute is resolved.
The case now highlights growing legal questions surrounding the role of Kadhi’s Courts in disputes that extend beyond personal law into ownership of property and constitutional rights.
