Nairobi News

A 30-year-old woman caused drama at the Milimani law courts claiming she was barred from filing a suit against Chief Justice David Maraga for child upkeep.

But in a swift rejoinder, Justice Maraga’s lawyers dismissed her suit as part of a smear campaign against the CJ by the deep state.

Mary Kwamboka Onyancha alleged Justice Maraga fathered her child, born on April 21, 2014. She is demanding Sh91,600 monthly upkeep from him.

In her documents, Onyancha claimed that she got into an intimate relationship with Maraga in 2013 and conceived the same year. Onyancha claims the CJ later disowned the child.

“Upon the birth of the minor, the plaintiff [Onyancha] requested the defendant [Maraga] for child upkeep but he adamantly refused and denied the paternity of the minor,” she states in the documents.

“Being a judge of the court of appeal, at the time, the defendant [Maraga] frustrated all the efforts by the plaintiff [Ms Onyancha] to reach out to him for child support.”

Ms Onyancha accuses Maraga of abdicating parental responsibility after he went mute on her and failed to offer support in raising “his” child.

Name of the mother does not exist in the registrar of births’ records

But one of Maraga’s lawyers Anita Masaki said it is not clear whether the child exists because the name of the mother does not exist in the registrar of births’ records.

Ms Onyancha claimed her suit papers were rejected at the court’s registry. However, Justice Maraga’s lead lawyer Danstan Omari said, “the woman is being used by those pushing Maraga out of office”.

Omari is acting for CJ Maraga alongside Masaki and Sam Nyaberi.

Omari said Ms Onyancha was required to pay mandatory filing fees of Sh655, which she failed to pay before she caused the drama.

“Our client is the chief justice of this country. There has been intense pressure from every quarter for the CJ to go or resign or leave office before the end of the CJ’s term which is coming to the end on January 12, 2021,” he said.

Omari said the pressure is occasioned by the standoff over judges who were not appointed.

The CJ has accused President Uhuru Kenyatta of refusing to appoint the 41 judges after the Judicial Service Commission interviewed them and recommended them for appointments.

Omari cited the recent smear campaign against the Chief Justice. “Pressure was mounted on CJ to resign or retire through a petition that is still pending for his removal. The CJ has been very clear that he is ready to litigate over that petition at Uhuru Park where every Kenyan will be able to know that the allegations that are being put across are untrue,” Omari said.

“The third attempt has been this matter that has not been filed but dramatised for public consumption so that the character, the dignity and respect of the office of the CJ can be eroded. This is politics. This is a war being pushed to him. It has been a war that was pushed to him as a CJ and now being pushed to him at the personal capacity.”

He said Maraga’s legal team will ensure that “this fraud that has been occasioned here is investigated. We will write to DPP and IG to take and investigate documents that have been annexed before this court because they are outright fraud”.

Provide for food, shelter, clothing and medical cover

She claimed Justice Maraga refused and failed to provide for food, shelter, clothing and medical cover for the minor.

The woman is demanding Sh20,000 for food, Sh5,000 for clothing and Sh45,000 for rent.

She is also demanding Sh41,600, Sh20, for medical cover and Sh10,000 for a house girl.

Mr Omari filed a notice of appointment after the drama of Ms Onyancha publicly “crying for justice” at the Milimani law courts went viral on social media.

“We made an application pursuant to section 175 of the Children’s Act which makes it illegal and criminal to publicize or make children’s matters public. We have come to this court to get statutory provisions of those sections only to be told that there is no case before this court,” Mr Omari said.

“Case is only the case once prerequisites are met – filing fee has been paid. Before we came to court, we have had a perusal with due diligence, on the annexures that accompany this.”