Two men, one woman, a child and claims of a workplace affair have made a court case fit for Hollywood drama.
It all started in February 2014, when Mr X met and started an intimate relationship with a female colleague.
The woman did not inform Mr X that she was married. The relationship culminated into her conceiving a baby in December 2014. During her pregnancy, Mr X supported her and upon determining the baby’s gender, they agreed to give the child a Pokot name.
He offered the woman both financial and moral support during the birth of the baby and thereafter.
At the end of her maternity leave, Mr X said they agreed she would pursue her master’s degree course for which he paid. He also furnished her house.
However, in March 2017, her attitude towards Mr X changed. He discovered that she had moved in with another man whom we will call Mr Y.
Upon further inquiry, Mr X discovered that the woman and Mr Y were married but had separated before they resolved their differences and resumed living together.
Consequently, Mr X stopped visiting the woman but requested access to the baby, a request she ignored. It was this state of affairs that led to the institution of the Children Case in Mavoko in which Mr X insisted that he was the biological father of the baby.
He filed an application before Mavoko court and orally requested for a DNA test which was agreed to by the magistrate. The DNA test was opposed by the woman who said it will amount to a breach of the minor’s rights to privacy.
On her part, the woman contends that Mr X was just an intruder into her family who is abusing the court process to further his ill motives and selfishness to breach the peace and harmony in the family.
She further said in any event, he did not demonstrate that he had any constitutional right that would override the rights of the minor.
She agreed that she worked with Mr X and on several occasions, he made improper advances to her. But the same was repeatedly turned down, the court was told.
Mr X did not take the rejection by the woman kindly and he vowed to wreck her marriage to “have her for himself” and in pursuit thereof, he filed the said suit, the woman said.
In her view, the best interest of the child would be best served by discharging the impugned order of the trial court and permanently restraining the man from accessing the minor.
The woman further told the court that Mr X has no legal or moral obligation to the minor and indeed does not even have financial ability to make provisions nor has he made any.
On May 28, High Court judge George Odunga set aside the order by the lower court allowing the DNA test.
He noted that even though there is nothing wrong with conducting a DNA test to ascertain who the father of the child is, the trial court did not consider factors whose effect was a limitation of the rights of the child and the woman.
The judge held that the direction that a party undergoes a DNA test is a limitation or restriction of the rights to privacy and dignity.
He further directed the parties to go back to Mavoko court for a conclusive determination of the case.
-The Star/Jillo Kadida