data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eccf8/eccf8e47a150758c83aca172d24c2c9556a46cda" alt=""
WEIGHT: 48 kg
Breast: 3
One HOUR:80$
Overnight: +50$
Sex services: Striptease, Rimming (receiving), Cum on breast, Deep throating, Dinner Dates
Please Wait. The appellant and the 1 st respondent married under the African Christian Marriage and Divorce Act repealed and were blessed with a son. The marriage between the appellant and 1 st respondent broke down and the appellant petitioned for dissolution. In , the appellant, living with the minor in Kenya, moved to York in the United Kingdom to pursue a master's degree in Law.
The 1 st respondent gave the appellant his consent for her to be accompanied by the child to the United Kingdom. The parties turned on one another. On the other hand, the 1 st respondent deposed that, as a consequence of complaints made to him by the child, he contacted the National Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Children in the United Kingdom and they sent social services to speak to the minor.
During all those incidents, the appellant averred that she succumbed to illness causing her to relocate back to Kenya. The 1 st respondent cross-applied for a child arrangement order that the child would live with him. The appellant also filed suit at the High Court that sought for the PRA to be adopted as an order of the court with the High Court granting the order sought.
At the time the order to adopt the PRA had been granted, the 1 st respondent had moved from the United Kingdom and was residing in Tanzania, but the child was still in boarding school in the United Kingdom. The Tanzanian High Court found that under section 2 of the Judgment Extension Act cap 7, RE , decrees from Kenya that could be executed in Tanzania were only those that related to debts, damages, or costs and that the parental responsibility agreement did not fall in either of those categories.
The Family Court in the United Kingdom High Court of Justice Family Division determined that the minor was habitually resident in England and Wales, the minor was not habitually resident in any other jurisdiction, whilst the child continued to be habitually resident in England and Wales, the English Courts retained jurisdiction to determine any issue in respect of parental responsibility.