[2002] KEHC 286 (KLR)
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient and reliable evidence to support her claim that she did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to the marriage. The absence of key witnesses, such as the registrar, the lawyer, and the witnesses to the marriage, weakened the petitioner's case. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 286 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: H C; Respondent: J M R
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Divorce Cause 42 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce Cause / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition dismissed
- Judges
- JM Khamoni
- Legal Topics
- Marriage Nullity, Consent to Marriage, Evidence Requirements
- 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
H C
Petitioner
J M R
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner knowingly and voluntarily consented to the marriage with the respondent.
- 2 Whether the marriage between the petitioner and respondent should be declared a nullity due to lack of consent.
- 3 Whether the evidence presented by the petitioner is sufficient to grant the prayers sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient and reliable evidence to support her claim that she did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to the marriage. The absence of key witnesses, such as the registrar, the lawyer, and the witnesses to the marriage, weakened the petitioner's case. The court held that it would be unsafe to rely solely on the petitioner's testimony without corroboration. Consequently, the petition was dismissed due to inadequate evidence.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed
Orders
- The petition dated 2nd March 2001 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
N THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIR0BI
DIVORCE CAUSE NO. 42 OF 2001
H C………………………… PETITIONER
AND
J M R ……………………. RESPONDENT
JUDMENT
I have listened to and considered what I have been told and have read during the hearing of this petition to declare the marriage between the petitioner H C and the Respondent J M R a nullity on the ground that the petitioner did not knowingly and voluntarily enter into and/or consent to a marriage union with the Respondent and that the petitioner did not know she was signing a marriage certificate, having been told by the Respondent that they were going to a lawyer’s office to sign an affidavit and the said lawyer not having pronounced the Respondent and the Petitioner as husband and wife and that the two who had previously been boy and girl friends only, never subsequently cohabited as husband and wife and that the purported marriage has never been consummated although the friendship between the two flourished for quite sometime after the event of signatures at the lawyer’s office.The petitioner produced what looks like a genuine original certificate of marriage No. 72056 dated 19th December 1997 to the effect that the marriage was solemnized at Superintendent Registrar’s Office in the Rift Valley at Nakuru by Registrar C.I. Mudinyu and witnessed by one EN M and B C R when the Petitioner and the Respondent are said to have been residing at Gilgil.
The Petitioner acknowledged her signature on the certificate and explains that by then she was a medical student taking a Clinical Officer’s Course at the Medical Training College Nakuru while the Respondent was a military officer at Gilgil. The Petitioner said she had been told that she would sign the affidavit so that the Respondent could be exempted from going for military peace keeping mission in other countries.
I note that not only has the Respondent not come to oppose this petition but material witnesses like the Registrar C.I. Mudinyu, E N M, B C R as well as the lawyer in whose office the Petitioner and the Respondent went, have not been brought to this court to give evidence. The Petitioner told the court she knew E NMand B C R and saw them outside the lawyer’s office as she and the Respondent were leaving the lawyer’s office.
The Petitioner said they both signed in a book. It means this certificate produced as an exhibit was still in its book. But as she signed it, just infront of her eyes were words “Marriage” and “Certificate of Marriage” written in big letters and very conspicuous with the words “REPUBLIC OF KENYA” prominently written at the top. The Petitioner claims she did not see all those.
The Respondent visited parents of the Petitioner in the presence of the Petitioner but she refuses to accept it was because of the Petitioner’s and the Respondent’s marriage. Witnesses from her home have not been called.
In this matter, therefore, I have the word of the Petitioner only. It may be a case of a genuinely married person who has now changed her mind and wants to move out of the marriage.
I feel the Petitioner should have brought the people I have referred to or some of them to support her case. As things stand now not only do I hold the view that it is unsafe to rely upon the evidence now before me to grant the Petitioner’s prayers but I also hold the view that the evidence is inadequate.
Accordingly the Petitioners petition herein dated 2nd March 2001 be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Dated this 9th day of May 2002.
J.M. KHAMONI
JUDGE