Legal Analysis on Enforceability of Parental Naming Rights – The Case of In Re Baby NWW (The Minor) [2025] KEHC 3306 (KLR)

1. Introduction

This memorandum provides a legal analysis of the decision in In Re Baby NWW (The Minor), Misc. Application E168 of 2024, with focus on the constitutional and statutory obligations of parents regarding naming a child, and the role of the Registrar of Births in enforcing identity rights.

 

2. Case Overview

In this matter, the Applicant (CKM) sought court intervention after the 1st Respondent (SW) registered their child’s name (“NWW”) unilaterally. The Applicant argued that this contravened their right to participate in naming the child, and violated the child’s right to identity.

The High Court held that both parents must be involved in naming the child and ordered the parties to agree on a joint name within 30 days, after which the Registrar would correct the birth certificate accordingly.

 

3. Legal Framework

a) Constitution of Kenya, 2010

• Article 53(1)(a): Every child has the right to a name and nationality from birth.
• Article 53(2): A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.
• Article 45(3): Parties to a marriage are entitled to equal rights at the time of the marriage, during the marriage, and at its dissolution.

b) Children Act, 2022

• Section 8(1): Every child shall have a right to a name from birth.
• Section 6(1): Parents have equal and joint parental responsibility for their child.
• Section 98: Provides for correction of names in the register of births on the basis of error or by order of the court.

c) Registration of Births and Deaths Act (Cap. 149)

• Section 10(1): Provides for re-registration of births where particulars need correction, including name changes directed by court order.

 

4. Key Judicial Findings

• The Court confirmed that both parents have equal responsibility and authority in naming their child.
• The unilateral registration by one parent was found to be contrary to the principle of shared parental responsibility and inconsistent with the Constitution.
• The child’s right to identity was considered central to the dispute, requiring corrective intervention by the Court and the Registrar.

 

5. Comparative Jurisprudence

a) In re Baby AOO [2019] eKLR

The High Court held that naming a child is a fundamental part of a child’s identity and that both parents must participate in this decision. It ordered the Registrar to reflect both names jointly chosen by the parents.

b) GMM v HNM [2018] eKLR

The Court restrained one parent from changing the child’s surname without the consent of the other parent, reaffirming that such decisions require mutual agreement.

These cases align with In Re Baby NWW and confirm the principle that courts will intervene where naming disputes infringe on either parent’s rights or the best interests of the child.

 

6. Implications and Recommendations

• Legal practitioners should counsel parents on their equal legal status in parental decision-making, including naming rights.
• The Registrar of Births must exercise caution and, where appropriate, require both parents' consent or a court order before registering or amending a child’s name.
• Parties seeking redress should:
• Document their objections promptly.
• Seek interim relief (injunctions) where unilateral action has already been taken.
• Pursue declaratory orders and administrative corrections under Section 98 of the Children Act.

 

7. Conclusion

In Re Baby NWW affirms the centrality of joint parental responsibility and the child’s right to identity under Kenyan law. It provides a framework for how courts should address unilateral acts relating to naming, and clarifies the Registrar's duties in such contexts. It stands as binding authority on birth registration disputes involving both legal and constitutional dimensions.