[2011] KEHC 423 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 423 (KLR)

The court found that the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent were lawfully married in November 1998 and that marriage was still subsisting at the time the 1st Respondent purported to marry the 2nd Respondent in July 2000. Under Section 14(1)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, a marriage is void if either party had a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] KEHC 423 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: E.A.O; Respondent: G.J; Respondent: C.A.M
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Divorce Cause 114 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed. Marriage between 1st and 2nd Respondents declared null and void. 2nd Respondent restrained from presenting herself as wife of 1st Respondent. Costs awarded to Petitioner.
Judges
I Lenaola
Legal Topics
Nullity of Marriage, Bigamy, Capacity to Marry
Source Language
en
Family and Children Nullity of Marriage Bigamy Capacity to Marry

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E.A.O

Applicant

G.J

Respondent

C.A.M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Cause / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the marriage between the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent is null and void due to the subsistence of the 1st Respondent's prior marriage to the Petitioner.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Respondent should be restrained from presenting herself as the wife of the 1st Respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the Petitioner is entitled to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent were lawfully married in November 1998 and that marriage was still subsisting at the time the 1st Respondent purported to marry the 2nd Respondent in July 2000. Under Section 14(1)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, a marriage is void if either party had a previous marriage still in force at the time of the subsequent marriage. The evidence, including marriage certificates, established that the 1st Respondent lacked capacity to contract a second marriage. The purported marriage between the 1st and 2nd Respondents was therefore a nullity. The court further held that the 2nd Respondent must be restrained from presenting herself as...

Court Disposition

Petition allowed. Marriage between 1st and 2nd Respondents declared null and void. 2nd Respondent restrained from presenting herself as wife of 1st Respondent. Costs awarded to Petitioner.

Orders

  • The marriage between the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent is declared null and void.
  • The 2nd Respondent is restrained from presenting herself in any form or manner as a wife of the 1st Respondent.