[2017] KEHC 885 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 885 (KLR)

The court found that the Respondent's withdrawal of the Cross-Petition was allegedly induced by threats and withdrawal of support, which the Petitioner denied but did not disprove with evidence. The Petitioner had not prosecuted the main Petition since 2009, and both parties had lived apart since 2004, indicating the marriage had irretrievably broken down. No evidence was provided of any consents or settlements that would bar reinstatement. The court held that, in the interests of justice and to bring the matter to a close, the Cross-Petition should be reinstated, allowing the Respondent to prosecute her case. The court exercised its inherent discretion to grant the application, subject...

Citation
[2017] KEHC 885 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: H A B; Respondent: L A O
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
8 December 2017
Case Number
Divorce Cause 34 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Cross Petition
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
M Thande
Legal Topics
Divorce Proceedings, Cross Petition Reinstatement, Withdrawal of Pleadings
Source Language
English
Family and Children Divorce Proceedings Cross Petition Reinstatement Withdrawal of Pleadings

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H A B

Petitioner

L A O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Cause / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Cross Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Cross-Petition withdrawn on 14.9.09 can be reinstated.
  2. 2 Whether the withdrawal of the Cross-Petition was procured by duress or undue influence.
  3. 3 Whether delay in seeking reinstatement bars the Respondent from relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent's withdrawal of the Cross-Petition was allegedly induced by threats and withdrawal of support, which the Petitioner denied but did not disprove with evidence. The Petitioner had not prosecuted the main Petition since 2009, and both parties had lived apart since 2004, indicating the marriage had irretrievably broken down. No evidence was provided of any consents or settlements that would bar reinstatement. The court held that, in the interests of justice and to bring the matter to a close, the Cross-Petition should be reinstated, allowing the Respondent to prosecute her case. The court exercised its inherent discretion to grant the application, subject...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The Application dated 23.6.16 is allowed.
  • The Cross-Petition withdrawn on 14.9.09 is reinstated.