The High Court has dismissed a son's bid to be appointed manager of his elderly father's affairs, ruling that he and his siblings do not require court orders to care for or maintain their ageing parent.
Justice M.S. Shariff declined to appoint NP as manager of the estate and affairs of his father, CNP, finding that the petition failed to meet the requirements of the Mental Health Act and that there was no property requiring court-appointed management.
"The petitioner and his siblings do not need any order of this court for purposes of maintaining their father, the ward," the judge ruled before dismissing the petition without any order as to costs.
The son had moved to the High Court through a petition dated November 11, 2025, seeking appointment as manager of his father's estate and affairs under the Mental Health Act. He relied on Articles 22 of the Constitution and Sections 2, 26, 27 and 28 of the Mental Health Act, arguing that his father was no longer capable of managing his own affairs because of illness.
According to court documents, the petitioner told the court that his 87-year-old father suffers from Alzheimer's Dementia with Parkinsonism and hypertensive heart disease.
He said the diagnosis had been confirmed by the family physician and that his father's deteriorating memory, speech and cognitive function had left him in constant need of care and attention.
The son argued that the illness had rendered his father incapable of managing his own affairs and property, making it necessary for the court to appoint him manager of the estate.
He further told the court that he had obtained the consent of his siblings to pursue the application.
The petitioner also informed the court that his father was one of the administrators in a succession case before a Bungoma High Court involving the estate of his late grandfather.
He argued that appointing him manager would safeguard his father's interests in those succession proceedings because his stepmother had allegedly failed to cooperate in matters relating to the estate.
However, the judge found several shortcomings in the application.
One of the court's main concerns was that despite earlier directions, the petitioner failed to properly involve his father's wife in the proceedings.
The court noted that although it had directed the petitioner to serve his stepmother with the petition and obtain her consent, he ignored those directions.
Justice Shariff observed that the Mental Health Act gives priority to a supporter and, where none has been appointed, to a representative when seeking orders for management of the affairs of a person with mental illness.
The judge said the petitioner never disclosed whether his father had appointed a supporter before filing the petition as a representative.
The court further noted that the law defines a representative to include a spouse before an adult child, unless the spouse is unable or unwilling to act.
Although the ward was married to FM, the petitioner did not demonstrate that she had declined or was unable to apply to manage her husband's affairs.
"Whereas the ward is married to one FM, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the said spouse of the ward has declined to apply for appointment as a manager of her husband's affairs," the judge said.
Justice Shariff also observed that the petitioner only disclosed the identity of his father's wife after being pressed by the court.
Even then, there was no evidence that she had been served with the petition as directed.
The judge added that the spouse was "better placed to be knowledgeable of the ward's current mental state and his daily needs" than the petitioner, who lives in Australia.
Although the medical report confirmed that CNP had been treated since 2020 and had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's Dementia with Parkinsonism and hypertensive heart disease, the judge held that the report was uncertified and did not satisfy the requirements of Section 26(2)(c) of the Mental Health Act.
Justice Shariff further found that the petitioner had failed to comply with another key legal requirement by not providing details of the ward's own property.
Instead, the petitioner supplied an inventory of assets belonging to his late grandfather's estate together with a list of beneficiaries.
The judge said the petition before the court concerned CNP and his estate, not that of his late father.
While acknowledging that CNP had an interest in the succession proceedings involving his father's estate, the court held that any issue relating to substitution of administrators in that succession case should be handled by the court hearing Succession Cause under the Law of Succession Act.
Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no known property belonging to the ward that required appointment of a manager.
"On the balance, I do find that the ward has no known property to warrant an appointment of a manager to manage his affairs and estate," Justice Shariff ruled.
Having found that the petition did not satisfy the requirements of the Mental Health Act, the judge dismissed it in its entirety.
