Woman sues Cabinet Secretary for child support, change of name and demands Sh6 million in refunds
Woman sues Cabinet Secretary for child support, change of name and demands Sh6 million in refunds
A Cabinet Secretary is facing legal action from an estranged partner who is seeking over Sh6 million in refunds for child-related expenses she claims she has solely borne since their child’s birth.
The woman, identified in court documents as F.M., has also requested court orders for future maintenance, sole custody, and a name change for the minor.
The case, filed at the Milimani Magistrate’s Court, concerns a child born in August 2023 after what both parties describe as a brief romantic relationship.
The minor’s paternity was confirmed in December 2024 through a DNA test that F.M. claims she paid for at a cost of Sh30,920, which she now seeks to have refunded.
F.M. listed expenses totaling Sh6,066,680 incurred in Kenya and Dubai for the child’s housing, food, medical care, clothing, transportation, and other necessities.
She claims that the Cabinet Secretary, known in legal documents as the Claimed Subject (CS), has abandoned his parental responsibilities despite clear evidence of paternity.
As part of the court-ordered negotiations, the CS submitted a proposal outlining his terms for supporting the child.
In the April 3 document, the CS agreed to pay for all of the child’s medical insurance and half of his or her educational expenses beginning with nursery school.
However, he has specified that the child must attend a Kenyan public school beginning at the a
ge of 12, citing the availability of free government education.
He categorically ruled out any contribution towards private or international school fees for secondary education.
Regarding housing, the CS has offered to contribute one-third of the costs, but strictly “at Kenyan rates.”
He has also opposed F.M.’s request to change the child’s name on official documents, arguing that such a decision should be left to the child upon reaching adulthood.
The CS’s legal team further cautioned F.M. to refrain from contacting him directly, emphasizing that all communication should proceed through legal representatives given the ongoing court proceedings.
The CS in question has been in controversial relation in the past.