[2008] KEHC 624 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 624 (KLR)

The court held that the respondent's application to file an answer to the petition out of time was a belated attempt to delay the proceedings. The Kenyan Matrimonial Causes Rules do not provide for the English 'special procedure' that allows for late filing after a decree nisi, and the authorities cited by the respondent are inapplicable in the Kenyan context. Since the petitioner had already testified, been cross-examined, and closed her case, reopening the matter would cause significant prejudice to her. The court found no sufficient justification to grant the respondent's application and dismissed it with costs to the petitioner.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 624 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: FMS; Respondent: MGC
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
26 June 2008
Case Number
Divorce Cause 102 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Answer Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
JW Gacheche
Legal Topics
Divorce Procedure, Custody of Children, Late Filing of Answer
Source Language
English
Family and Children Divorce Procedure Custody of Children Late Filing of Answer

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FMS

Applicant

MGC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Cause / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Answer Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be granted leave to file an answer to the divorce petition out of time.
  2. 2 Whether allowing the respondent's application would prejudice the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent's application to file an answer to the petition out of time was a belated attempt to delay the proceedings. The Kenyan Matrimonial Causes Rules do not provide for the English 'special procedure' that allows for late filing after a decree nisi, and the authorities cited by the respondent are inapplicable in the Kenyan context. Since the petitioner had already testified, been cross-examined, and closed her case, reopening the matter would cause significant prejudice to her. The court found no sufficient justification to grant the respondent's application and dismissed it with costs to the petitioner.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The respondent's application for leave to file an answer to the petition out of time is dismissed.
  • The respondent shall pay the costs of the application to the petitioner.