A Kiambu billionaire, Walter Karanja, has lost a court bid to have his two children with his estranged wife, Faith Nyaguthii, returned to an international school where he says he paid Sh950,000 per child every term.
The dispute, which has spilled into the Thika Law Courts, centres on the children’s education, parental custody and the responsibility to meet their school fees following the breakdown of the couple’s marriage.
Karanja moved to court after Nyaguthii transferred the children from their former international school to another institution near Kamiti Prison, where the fees are reportedly Sh150,000 per child per term.
The businessman questioned the decision to move the children to the cheaper school, arguing that he had the financial means to maintain them at their former institution, where the fees for the two children amounted to Sh1.9 million every term.
He maintained that he could afford more than Sh1 million per term for their education and challenged his estranged wife to explain why she had opted for a less expensive institution despite his willingness to finance their schooling.
In challenging the transfer, Karanja also raised concerns about the facilities and learning environment at the new school, citing the use of pit latrines and the sight of prisoners walking home from Kamiti Prison.
“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 lawyer, Wilson Mukuna, told the court that the dispute went beyond the choice of school, claiming that Karanja had also been denied access to the children.
The application placed the court at the centre of a wider disagreement between the estranged couple over how their children should be raised, where they should study and the extent to which each parent should participate in decisions affecting their welfare.
Nyaguthii defended her decision to change the children’s school, telling the court that her priority was to have them close to her so she could spend more time with them and provide direct parental care.
She argued that living closer to the children would allow her to participate more actively in their upbringing, mentor them and attend to their daily needs.
Her position presented a different perspective on the dispute, with the mother emphasising proximity, supervision and parental involvement rather than the cost or perceived prestige of the school.
Nyaguthii also made allegations about Karanja’s conduct, accusing him of being a daily drinker and claiming that he had taken the children to bars on several occasions during weekends.
Karanja denied the allegations.
The court also heard claims that the children had been mistreated by Karanja’s second wife, including allegations that water had been poured on them in the morning.
The businessman denied that the children had been tortured, disputing the claims made against him.
The competing accusations added another layer to the custody dispute, with both parties presenting different accounts of the children’s home environment and their respective roles in safeguarding their welfare.
In her ruling, Senior Principal Magistrate Maureen Nabibya ordered that the children remain in their mother’s custody until December 2026, when they are expected to sit their examinations.
The decision means the children will continue attending their current school during the period specified by the court, rather than returning to the international institution their father had sought to reinstate.
The magistrate also declined an application by Nyaguthii’s lawyer, Njeri Gachari, seeking an order compelling Karanja to pay the children’s school fees.
Karanja maintained that he was only prepared to finance their education at the former international school, signalling his unwillingness to meet the fees at the institution selected by Nyaguthii.
The court directed Nyaguthii to meet the fees at the current school, having made the decision to transfer the children there.
The ruling therefore left the mother responsible for the immediate education costs at the new institution, while the dispute over the children’s schooling and the parents’ respective obligations remained unresolved.
The difference in the cost of the two schools is substantial. Based on the figures presented in court, the former institution charged Sh1.9 million for both children every term, compared with Sh300,000 combined at the new school.
That represents a difference of Sh1.6 million per term, although the dispute before the court also involved questions of parental access, the children’s living arrangements and allegations concerning their treatment.
The case highlights the challenges that can arise when separated parents disagree over educational choices and the financial arrangements for their children.
While Karanja’s application focused on restoring the children to their former school, Nyaguthii maintained that keeping them close to her would enable her to provide the care and mentorship she considered necessary.
The court’s temporary custody arrangement is expected to remain in place until the children complete their December examinations, subject to any further directions.
The matter will return to the Thika Law Courts on January 13, 2027, for further directions.
