A prominent Cabinet Secretary (CS) is facing a significant legal challenge as his estranged partner pursues a substantial claim for child support and related expenses. The woman, identified in court documents as F.M., is seeking over KSh 6 million in refunds for costs she alleges she has borne alone since the birth of their child. The case, filed at the Milimani Magistrate's Court, also includes requests for court orders regarding future maintenance, sole custody, and even a name change for the minor.
The legal action centers around a child born in August 2023, the result of what both parties acknowledge was a brief romantic relationship. The child's paternity was definitively established in December 2024 through a DNA test, a test that F.M. claims she paid for herself, incurring a cost of KSh 30,920 – an amount she now seeks to have reimbursed as part of her overall claim.
In her detailed counterclaim, F.M. lists a staggering KSh 6,066,680 in expenses, accumulated both in Kenya and during a period spent in Dubai. These expenses cover a wide range of necessities for the child, including housing, food, medical care, clothing, and transportation. F.M. argues that the Cabinet Secretary, referred to in legal documents as the Claimed Subject (CS), has essentially abandoned his parental responsibilities, despite the undeniable proof of paternity.
As is customary in such cases, the court has ordered negotiations between the parties in an attempt to reach an amicable settlement. In an April 3 document submitted as part of these negotiations, the CS outlined his proposed terms for supporting the child. While he agrees to contribute to certain aspects of the child's upbringing, his offers come with significant conditions.
The CS has stated his willingness to cover the child's medical insurance in full and to pay for half of his or her educational expenses, starting from nursery school. However, he has stipulated a crucial condition: the child must attend a Kenyan public school beginning at the age of 12. He has categorically rejected any financial contribution towards private or international school fees, particularly for secondary education, citing the availability of "free" government education.
Regarding housing, the CS has offered to contribute only one-third of the costs, and with a strict caveat: the housing must be "at Kenyan rates," a potentially contentious point given F.M.'s previous residence in Dubai. He has also vehemently opposed F.M.’s request to change the child’s name on official documents, arguing that such a decision should be deferred to the child until he or she reaches adulthood.
The CS’s legal team has further issued a stern warning to F.M., advising her to refrain from contacting him directly. All communication, they insist, must proceed through their legal representatives, given the ongoing and potentially acrimonious nature of the court proceedings.
This high-profile case raises complex questions about parental responsibility, financial obligations, and the rights of a child born outside of a traditional marital setting. The court's ultimate decision will not only impact the lives of the individuals directly involved but could also set a precedent for similar cases in Kenya, particularly those involving individuals in positions of power and influence. The public, and indeed the legal community, will be watching closely as this case unfolds.
