JE v FE (Children's Case E002 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 458 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan Children's Court struck out a guardianship case because the child had turned 18, so the court lost power to make guardianship orders.
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 court has jurisdiction to issue orders in respect of a person who has attained the age of majority
Key legal issues
#Whether the Children's Court retains jurisdiction to grant guardianship and parental responsibility orders over a subject who has attained the age of majority
Jurisdiction existed at inception but continued jurisdiction was lost upon the subject attaining eighteen years; absent exceptional circumstances, the prayers were overtaken by events and the suit was struck out
The court distinguished jurisdiction at inception, which existed when proceedings were commenced while the subject was a child, from continuing jurisdiction, which is affected by attainment of majority. Section 91(5) of the Children's Act 2022 requires transfer where a person to whom proceedings relate is above eighteen. Guardianship and parental responsibility prayers are founded on the subject's status as a child; once an adult, the subject acquires legal capacity over personal and welfare decisions. No exceptional circumstances justified continuation, so the suit was struck out with no order as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- Where a person to whom children's court proceedings relate is above eighteen years, the court shall transfer the proceedings to another court under the relevant law (s.91(5), Children's Act 2022)
- Attainment of the age of majority is a supervening circumstance that materially affects the court's continuing jurisdiction over guardianship and parental responsibility
- Institution of proceedings while the subject was a child is not retrospectively invalidated by the subject attaining eighteen years
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is struck out
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Children's Court jurisdiction under the Children's Act 2022, including s.91(5) on transfer where a person is above eighteen years
Relief refused
#Appointment of the Plaintiff as legal guardian of V.E
The subject had attained the age of majority and no exceptional circumstances justified continuation of guardianship
Parental responsibility over the minor for medical, educational and welfare decisions
Upon attaining majority the subject acquires legal capacity to make decisions concerning his/her own person and welfare
Direction that the Department of Children's Services supervise and file reports
Ancillary to the guardianship and parental responsibility prayers which were overtaken by the attainment of majority
Costs
No orders as to costs - each matter being unopposed and a family matter; 'there shall be 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.
Accordingly, the suit is struck out and since the same was not opposed and in any event, this being a family matter, there shall be no orders as to costs.
attaining the age of majority is a supervening circumstance which materially affects the court's continuing jurisdiction
In the absence of such circumstances, the prayers for guardianship and parental responsibility have been overtaken by the attainment of the age of majority
Issues in the judgment
#The court identifies the issue as whether it has jurisdiction to 'issues orders' over a person who has attained majority, and notes s.91(5) requires transfer of proceedings to another court, but instead of transferring the proceedings it strikes the suit out
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "JE v FE (Children's Case E002 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 458 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Malaba SPMCHC No. E002 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/458/eng@2026-08-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.