Kafula v. Manyinye Civl App. M-12-71; 30/9/71; Jonathan Ag. J.

Kafula v. Manyinye Civl App. M-12-71; 30/9/71; Jonathan Ag. J.

The appellant is the father of a school girl who conceived for the respondent, her teacher. The district court found for the appellant and proceeded to award him compensation and to make a maintenance order. The appellant sought to enhance the maintenance order made of Shs. 60/= per month, it being alleged that the respondent is in receipt of a monthly salary in excess of a figure he gave.

            Held: (1) “It has occurred to me that the appellant could not properly have bought the proceedings. The suit, it seems, was brought under the affiliation Ordinance which makes provisions for the maintenance of illegitimate children. Section 3 of the Ordinance provides, inter alia, that “any unmarried woman who may be with child or who maybe delivered of a child may make an application for the man cited as the child’s father to be summoned”. If upon hearing the application, the court is satisfied the man named is the child’s putative father, it may hen order him to pay a specified sum as maintenance. There are no provisions in the legislation enabling anybody else to file a suit for maintenance.” (2) “There is, however, a real possibility that the appellant’s daughter was a minor at the time of his filing the suit. I would be prepared to assume that was so. In that case, having regard to the terms of Order XXXI of the Civil Procedure Code, he should have filed the claim, upon application, as her guardian or next friend, but the suit had to be in her name. That seems to have been neither the manner nor the understanding in which the proceedings were conducted. The suit was filed and prosecuted in his own name and the compensation and maintenance orders appear to have been made personally in his favour it is appreciated that his daughter was in his care and that the offspring born to her became an added responsibility to him. He filed the proceedings, no doubt, to obtain a measure of relief from the additional commitment posed by the situation. In a word, he would appear to have had every justification for sung the respondent.” (3) “Most unfortunately, however, the law would not permit him to seek relief in the manner adopted. It did not entitle him to bring proceedings in his own name. That he did so, I am afraid, go to the root of the matter and the proceedings were a nullity”. (4) Orders made were set aside.