A Kiambu businessman, Walter Karanja, has lost a court bid to have his two children with his estranged wife, Faith Nyaguthii, reinstated at an international school where he previously paid Sh950,000 per child every term.
The dispute over the children's education has exposed deep divisions between the former couple over school fees, parental access, custody and the environment in which their children should be raised.
Karanja moved to the Thika Law Courts after Nyaguthii withdrew the children from their former school and enrolled them at another institution near Kamiti Prison, where fees reportedly stand at Sh150,000 per term.
He argued that there was no justification for moving the children to a cheaper school when he had the financial means to maintain them at their previous institution, where the combined fees amounted to Sh1.9 million per term.
The businessman told the court that he could afford more than Sh1 million per term for their education and questioned his estranged wife's decision to transfer the children without maintaining the educational arrangements he had been financing.
Father challenges school transfer and learning environment
Karanja also raised concerns about the facilities and surroundings at the new school, contrasting them with the standards he expected for his children.
He particularly objected to the use of pit latrines and the children's proximity to Kamiti Prison, describing the learning environment as unsuitable for children whose education he had been funding at an international institution.
“I can't stand having my children learning with ordinary children, using a pit latrine and seeing Kamiti prisoners as they trek home from school while they have a personal driver! No way!” he exclaimed.
His remarks brought the differences between the parents into sharp focus, with the dispute extending beyond the cost of education to questions about the quality of schooling and the children's daily experiences.
Through his lawyer, Wilson Mukuna, Karanja further complained that he had been denied access to the children, raising concerns about his ability to maintain contact with them following the breakdown of his relationship with Nyaguthii.
But Nyaguthii defended her decision to change the children's school, telling the court that her intention was to have them closer to her home.
She argued that the arrangement would enable her to spend more time with the children, provide closer supervision and participate more directly in their upbringing.
Her position placed emphasis on day-to-day parental care rather than the cost or prestige associated with the former school.
Parents make competing allegations over children's welfare
The court also heard competing allegations about the children's welfare while in their father's care.
Nyaguthii accused Karanja of being a daily drinker and alleged that he had taken the children to bars on several occasions during weekends. Karanja denied the accusations.
There were also allegations that the children had been mistreated by Karanja's second wife, including claims that water had been poured on them in the morning.
Karanja rejected the allegations of mistreatment, denying that the children had been tortured.
The competing claims added another layer to the dispute, which has now drawn judicial attention to both the children's living arrangements and the parents' competing positions on their welfare.
Court maintains custody and schooling arrangements
In her ruling, Senior Principal Magistrate Maureen Nabibya directed that the children remain in their mother's custody until December 2026, when they are expected to sit their examinations.
The order effectively maintains the existing custody arrangement during the examination period, with the court declining to grant Karanja's application to have the children returned to their former international school.
The ruling also left unresolved the wider disagreement over who should meet the cost of the children's education.
Nyaguthii's lawyer, Njeri Gachari, had asked the court to compel Karanja to pay the school fees. However, the magistrate declined the application.
Karanja maintained that he was prepared to finance the children's education at their former international school but was unwilling to meet the fees charged by the institution chosen by Nyaguthii.
The court directed Nyaguthii to meet the fees at the current school, having made the decision to transfer the children there.
The decision leaves the mother responsible for the immediate educational costs under the current arrangement, while the father's position remains that he will only pay for the institution he considers appropriate for the children.
The dispute highlights the challenges that can arise when separated parents disagree over schooling, financial responsibility and access to their children, particularly where their preferred arrangements differ substantially.
For now, the children are expected to remain with their mother through their December examinations, pending further directions from the court.
The case will return to the Thika Law Courts on January 13, 2027, for further directions.
Reader Discussion (0)
Sign in to comment