Court dismisses Karume paternity case

By Judy Ogutu

A man claiming to be the son of former Defence Minister, Mr Njenga Karume has suffered a setback following the dismissal of a paternity case he had filed in court.

On Friday, High Court Judge, Justice David Majanja upheld a preliminary objection by the former minister and threw out the petition that had been lodged by Mr Edwin Thuo.

Njenga Karume

Thuo had moved to court claiming the former Kiambaa Member of Parliament (MP) was his biological father but had refused to acknowledge him as his son despite repeated attempts to be recognised as such.

He moved to court seeking to compel Karume to have a DNA test to confirm whether he is his biological father.

Through his advocate, Mr Irungu Kang’ata, he had also pledged to foot the DNA bill, saying the test would verify the paternity issue as well as the merits and demerits of the case.

His mother, Lucy Muthoni also joined him saying the former minister is his biological father.

In a sworn statement filed in court, she claimed Karume sired Thuo in 1966 when she worked for him as a secretary at his Kiambu General Transport Agency.

Muthoni claimed that she was a cousin to Karume's first wife, Maryann Wariara, and it was one the reasons she concealed the information about his son. She said she feared embarrassing her cousin and Karume, was a public figure.

In response, Karume, through his advocate, Mr Fred Ngatia denied claims by Thuo saying the man was only seeking financial gain from him.

Consequently, he raised the preliminary objection seeking to have the case struck out as Thuo had concealed some facts about the case.

He told Justice Majanja that a similar matter was settled and Muthoni was paid Sh5million when she agreed to withdraw the case.

The Attorney General (AG), who has also been sued in the case applied for the dismissal of the case on grounds that Thuo had concealed facts.

Thuo’s advocate had contended that the objection does not raise a pure point of law.

He also maintained that under the civil procudure rules, he retained his powers to file another suit.

It was also argued that in the case that was settled, the parties were litigating in their private capacity unlike this one where she was litigating on his behalf and that of others.

Justice Majanja ruled that the order was still part of court records as it had not been set aside.

Parties in that case, he added, are bound to abide by the agreement and the court cannot disregard the consent.

"The issue to be resolved is one of paternity and it was resolved by the agreement in court, addition of the AG and exclusion of the mother are merely cosmetic. It cannot be re-opened by packaging it differently," he observed.

As he struck out the case, the judge ruled that Thuo’s claim was to circumvent the binding agreement and it constitutes of abuse of court process.