A High Court ruling in Nairobi has sparked a national debate about the boundaries between parenting and adulthood after a judge suspended enforcement orders requiring a father to finance costly aviation training for his 28-year-old son.
The case highlights a dilemma many Kenyan families face about where parenting ends and adulthood begins.
Central to the dispute is the question of whether parents have a legal obligation to support an adult child pursuing education, particularly when financial resources are limited, and other dependents rely on the same parent?
Justice Helene Namisi issued the ruling while granting a stay of execution against a Children’s Court decision that extended parental responsibility beyond age 18 and mandated the father, code-named Mr NNK, to pay aviation school fees.
The dispute began in 2018 when the mother, codenamed Ms CMK, petitioned the Children’s Court for the son’s maintenance and school fees. A 2019 mediation agreement required the father, Mr NNK, to pay Sh1.3 million, but both parties later accused each other of violating the terms.
In October 2024, the Children’s Court ruled parental responsibility extended to their son, Mr KNK, despite his age, ordering his father to fund his aviation studies after he dropped out of Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology.
Dissatisfied with this order, the father lodged an appeal to the High Court, arguing the magistrate lacked jurisdiction over cases concerning adult children. He sought to halt the enforcement of the lower court’s judgment.
Justice Namisi framed the central question: Does the "Best Interests of the Child" principle apply to a 28-year-old? The father claimed that he was a retiree relying on subsistence farming and with no stable income.
He claimed enforcement of the Children’s court order would cause financial ruin and risk civil imprisonment, exacerbating his poor health.
Medical records showed he underwent prostate surgery in December 2024 and was advised against strenuous activity.
He argues that forcing him to pay for a new, expensive aviation course for a 28-year-old, while he has already contributed to the university education, is unjust.
The court deemed this evidence persuasive. “Incarcerating him in a civil jail would likely worsen his condition, expose him to infection, and prevent him from following his surgeon’s prescribed recovery plan,” stated the court.
It added that court orders “should not be instruments of cruelty,” referencing prior appellate rulings.
The father also noted that he supports a 10-year-old child who depends entirely on him. He argued that jailing him or depleting his resources would unfairly punish an innocent minor.
Ms CMK opposed the application, insisting her son remained dependent and suspending the lower court order would disrupt his training. She cited Article 53 of the Constitution, asserting parental duty extends to dependent children regardless of age.
She disputed Mr NNK’s financial hardship, alleging he owned farms, rental properties, and businesses while deliberately evading responsibility.
She also contested his claims of financial hardship, alleging he owns farms, rental properties, and businesses while deliberately neglecting his parental obligations.
“He is a man of means who owns a lucrative fish farm, a coffee farm, and a 'muguka' plantation, in addition to rental properties and engineering businesses. The applicant’s refusal to pay is not due to inability but is a deliberate attempt to evade responsibility,” argued the mother.
However, the court acknowledged the dispute but focused on broader legal questions. Aviation training costs millions, and forcing payment now could cause irreversible loss if the appeal succeeds. It noted inconsistencies in the Children Act, which defines a child as under 18 but allows exceptions for disability or education.
Under the Children Act, a child is defined as someone under 18. Parental responsibility typically ends at that age, though exceptions exist under special circumstances.
"Does Section 111 authorise indefinite maintenance for a 28-year-old?" the judge questioned, rejecting a broad application of the "child’s best interests" principle.
“The subject here is an adult. While he may be a ‘child of the family’ socially, he is not a child constitutionally,” stated the judge.
The court noted inconsistencies in the law—one provision allows extensions primarily for disability, while another permits maintenance for adults over 18 still pursuing education.
Judge Namisi emphasised balancing competing interests, warning against prioritising adult education over a minor’s basic needs. She noted that the appeal raises significant legal questions, particularly regarding the extent of parental responsibility after a child turns 18.
“If the appellant is forced to pay millions for aviation fees now, and the appellate court later rules that parents have no duty to support a 28-year-old adult, he would suffer irreversible loss—especially if the respondent (Ms CMK) cannot repay the funds. This would render the appeal meaningless,” the court observed.
It also scrutinised whether parents can be compelled to fund a second, expensive course for an adult child, particularly after supporting prior university education.
The court granted a stay of execution, requiring Mr NNK to deposit Sh250,000 as security.
The ruling sets the stage for a broader legal examination of modern parenting, financial pressures, and the limits of parental responsibility in adulthood.
