News

On June 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of Kenya issued a landmark ruling that has sent ripples through both the legal and religious communities. The court held that children born out of wedlock to Muslim fathers are entitled to inherit from their father’s estate—a decision that directly challenges traditional interpretations of Islamic inheritance law and has ignited a vigorous national debate. The Supreme Court anchored its decision on two key constitutional provisions:

• Equality Before the Law (Article 27): The Constitution guarantees equal protection and benefit of the law for all, prohibiting discrimination on any grounds, including birth status.
• Best Interests of the Child (Article 53): The court emphasized that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all matters affecting children.

By invoking these articles, the court concluded that excluding children born out of wedlock from inheritance is both discriminatory and contrary to the constitutional mandate of equality and child welfare. The court unequivocally rejected the practice of denying inheritance rights to children born out of wedlock, labeling it as unjustifiable discrimination. In its reasoning, the court asserted that the Kenyan legal framework must protect all children equally, regardless of their parents’ marital status.

While acknowledging the recognition of Muslim personal law and the role of Kadhi courts in adjudicating matters of Muslim personal status, the Supreme Court clarified that such laws must be interpreted and applied in harmony with the Constitution. The decision underscores that religious laws cannot override constitutional protections, especially those related to equality and the rights of children.

The ruling has been met with strong opposition from segments of the Muslim community. Some religious leaders and scholars argue that the decision undermines the autonomy of Kadhi courts and infringes upon the religious freedoms of Muslims by imposing constitutional standards on matters traditionally governed by Islamic law. In response to the ruling, several Muslim leaders have called for a review, contending that the Supreme Court failed to adequately respect religious laws and customs. They warn that the decision could set a precedent for further encroachment on religious autonomy.

This case has reignited a broader debate in Kenya about the delicate balance between upholding constitutional rights and respecting religious freedom. The ruling raises complex questions about the extent to which religious laws can coexist with constitutional mandates, particularly in a diverse society with multiple legal traditions. Legal experts anticipate that this decision may open the door to further challenges regarding the application of Islamic law in Kenya.

The tension between constitutional supremacy and religious autonomy is likely to prompt additional litigation and legislative scrutiny in the coming years. The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant shift in the intersection of constitutional and religious law in Kenya. By affirming the inheritance rights of children born out of wedlock to Muslim fathers, the court has prioritized constitutional guarantees of equality and child welfare, while also prompting a national conversation about the place of religious law in a modern constitutional democracy. The ultimate impact of this ruling will depend on how courts, lawmakers, and communities navigate the evolving relationship between faith and the law in Kenya.