[2004] KEHC 1962 (KLR)
The court found that the petitioner had proved the grounds of cruelty, including physical and verbal abuse, financial oppression, and neglect by the respondent. The evidence showed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, with both parties seeking dissolution. The court also considered the welfare of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1962 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Christine Achieng Ogot; Respondent: Christopher Odhiambo Oketch
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 196 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- Petition allowed. Marriage dissolved. Custody of minor child to petitioner. Each party to bear own costs.
- Judges
- FI Koome
- Legal Topics
- Divorce, Cruelty, Child Custody, Irretrievable Breakdown, Maintenance, Matrimonial Violence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Christine Achieng Ogot
Applicant
Christopher Odhiambo Oketch
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner has proved grounds for dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty.
- 2 Whether the marriage between the petitioner and respondent has irretrievably broken down.
- 3 Who should have custody of the minor child of the marriage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the petitioner had proved the grounds of cruelty, including physical and verbal abuse, financial oppression, and neglect by the respondent. The evidence showed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, with both parties seeking dissolution. The court also considered the welfare of the minor child, who had been in the petitioner's custody since 1990, and found no reason to disturb the status quo. Accordingly, the court granted a decree of divorce, dissolved the marriage, and awarded custody of the child to the petitioner.
Court Disposition
Petition allowed. Marriage dissolved. Custody of minor child to petitioner. Each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- Decree nisi of divorce to issue for a period of 6 months dissolving the marriage solemnized on 31st August, 1985.
- Custody of the minor child granted to the petitioner.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
DIVORCE CAUSE NO.196 OF 2000
CHRISTINE ACHIENG OGOT…………………………………...PETITIONER
AND
CHRISTOPHER ODHIAMBO OKETCH………………..…..….RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner in this cause, presented the amended petition, whereby she seeks for an order dissolving the marriage solemonized on31st August, 1985 at St. Joseph’s Cathedral Church Kisumu between the Petitioner and Respondent.
After the solemnization of the said marriage, the parties cohabited in Mombasa until 1989 when they separated. There is some issue to the said marriage namely Michael Oketch aged 16 years. Both parties are domiciled in Kenya.
The Respondent filed an answer and cross petition but did not appear during the hearing. The petitioner in presentation of the petitioner adduced evidence in support of the grounds contained in the amended petition. According to the petitioner, she was subjected to physical and verbal violence. She was tormented by the Respondent who used to stalk her. In one incident, the petitioner was assaulted until she had a miscarriage. She was hospitalized and the respondent neglected/refused to pay the hospital bills. The petitioner was helped by her employer to pay the bills. The petitioner was supposed to surrender her entire salary to the Respondent who would in turn give her transport go to work. The petitioner was so oppressed because the Ksh.10/= she used to be given would hardly be enough for bus fare and lunch. Eventually when the petitioner obtained a job in Nairobi she moved to Nairobi with the child. All attempts in 1990 to reconcile the parties did not work as the respondent did not want to talk about their problems before the family meetings.
I have considered the evidence tendered by the petitioner, the amended petition filed herein as well as the Answer and Cross Petition by the Respondent. It is noteworthy that even the Respondent although he did not prosecute the cross petition has sought for the dissolution of marriage. Whichever way therefore one looks out the marriage, it is irretrievably broken down. The only issue is perhaps for the custody of the child who is now 16 years old and has been in defacto custody care and control of the petitioner since 1990 and there being no grounds adduced as to why the status quo should be disturbed, I would not interfere with the custody.
In conclusion therefore, I find that the petitioner has been able to prove the grounds of cruelty and I accordingly pronounce a decree of divorce and dissolve the marriage solemnized on 31st August, 1985. The decree nisi shall issue for a period of 6 months.
The petitioner shall have custody of the minor child of the marriage. Each party shall bear their own costs of this litigation.
It is so ordered.
Judgment read and signed on 12th March, 2004.
MARTHA KOOME
JUDGE