PAO v JKM
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that second appeals only address legal errors, so the Kshs. 13,000 monthly child maintenance and shared custody orders stand.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellant raised substantive issues of law warranting interference on a second appeal
- 2.Whether the High Court judge was impartial or demonstrated a predetermined mind
- 3.Whether the High Court erred in the 50:50 parental responsibility and Kshs. 13,000 monthly maintenance orders
Key legal issues
#Scope of a second appeal
The Court is confined to issues of law only; the appellant's grounds invited re-analysis of facts and raised no substantive issue of law.
The Court reiterated the settled principle from Charles Kipkoech Leting v Express (K) Ltd and the long line of authority behind it. The appellant's grounds on financial capacity and fairness required re-evaluating facts. The High Court had applied the best interests principle and equal parental responsibility under Articles 53(1) and 53(2), so there was no legal error to correct.
Alleged bias of the first appellate judge
The bias claim failed: the onus lay on the appellant, mere suspicion is insufficient, and the record showed no request to be served with the respondent's submissions.
The Court held that even if it entertained the impartiality allegation, actual bias or reasonable apprehension must be established. It examined the record and found no such request was made, undermining the factual basis of the complaint. It detected no matter considered or omitted that would render the decision perverse.
Best interests of the child and equal parental responsibility
The High Court's decision was anchored on the best interests of the minors and equal parental responsibility under the Constitution and Children's Act, and was free of legal error.
The respondent relied on Article 53 of the Constitution and sections 6(1) and 94(1) of the Children's Act, which impose equal parental responsibility and guide financial provision orders. The Court found the first appellate court's overriding theme was the children's best interests, with no error or misapplication of legal principles.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal the Court of Appeal is confined to matters of law only, unless the courts below considered matters they ought not to have, failed to consider matters they ought to have, or the decision was perverse.
- A party alleging judicial bias bears the onus of establishing actual bias or grounds of reasonable apprehension; mere suspicion or strong anxieties are insufficient.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nyamira
- HCCA No. E002 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal to the Court of Appeal confined to matters of law only
Relief refused
#Reduction of the Kshs. 13,000 monthly maintenance and 50:50 parental responsibility orders
The grounds invited re-analysis of facts, which is beyond the jurisdiction of a second appeal
Claim of judicial bias/impartiality against the High Court judge
Mere suspicion is insufficient and the record showed no request for the respondent's submissions
Costs
No orders as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
on a second appeal, this Court is confined to dealing with issues of law only unless it is demonstrated that the courts below considered matters, they ought not to have considered or failed to consider matters they ought to have considered, or that the decision was perverse.
Mere suspicion or strong anxieties are not enough to sustain a claim of lack of impartiality.
Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent date: judgment in the appeal below said to be delivered 14th December 2022, yet the High Court judgment is dated 15th February 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "PAO v JKM", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal E078 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1920/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.