Z N A M E v H A N S [2017] KEHC 8813 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 8813 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- M Thande
- Case number
- Civil Suit 28 of 2014
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- M Thande
- Case number
- Civil Suit 28 of 2014
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the Petitioner’s evidence that the marriage was never consummated was uncontroverted, as the Respondent did not file any response or contest the claim. The court accepted the Petitioner’s testimony as credible and sufficient. The court further found that the Petition was filed within one year of the marriage, satisfying the statutory requirement under Section 73(2)(a) of the Marriage Act, 2014. Accordingly, the court held that the Petitioner had established valid grounds for annulment under Section 73(1)(a) of the Marriage Act, 2014, and granted a decree of nullity, annulling the marriage between the parties.
Court disposition
petition allowed; marriage annulled
Orders
- A decree of nullity is pronounced and the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent solemnised at the Registrar’s Office in Mombasa on 6.9.13 is hereby annulled.
- Decree nisi to issue and to be made absolute within 30 days.
- There shall be no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Z N A M E
ApplicantH A N S
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent should be annulled on the ground of non-consummation.
- 02
Whether the Petition was filed within the statutory period required for annulment.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Petitioner argued that the marriage was never consummated as the Respondent left for Nairobi and then Australia a day after the marriage and has not returned. She relied on Section 73(1)(a) of the Marriage Act, 2014, which provides non-consummation as a ground for annulment, and asserted that the Petition was filed within one year of the marriage as required by law.
- Respondent
- The Respondent did not file an answer to the Petition and did not contest the Petitioner’s evidence. Counsel for the Respondent was present at the hearing but did not cross-examine the Petitioner or present any arguments.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 73(1)(a), Marriage Act, 2014
A marriage may be annulled if it has not been consummated since its celebration.
- 02
Section 73(2)(a), Marriage Act, 2014
A petition for annulment must be made within one year of the celebration of the marriage.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the Petitioner’s evidence that the marriage was never consummated was uncontroverted, as the Respondent did not file any response or contest the claim. The court accepted the Petitioner’s testimony as credible and sufficient. The court further found that the Petition was filed within one year of the marriage, satisfying the statutory requirement under Section 73(2)(a) of the Marriage Act, 2014. Accordingly, the court held that the Petitioner had established valid grounds for annulment under Section 73(1)(a) of the Marriage Act, 2014, and granted a decree of nullity, annulling the marriage between the parties.
Obiter and limits
- Non-consummation of a marriage provides a valid ground for the nullification of that marriage.
- The evidence of the Petitioner remains uncontroverted in all material respects.
Court disposition
petition allowed; marriage annulled
- A decree of nullity is pronounced and the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent solemnised at the Registrar’s Office in Mombasa on 6.9.13 is hereby annulled.
- Decree nisi to issue and to be made absolute within 30 days.
- There shall be no order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
High Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA
FAMILY DIVISION
CIVIL SUIT NO. 28 OF 2014
Z N A M E …..……...……...…PETITIONER
VERSUS
H A N S...…....…..……....…RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner Z N A M Ehas filed this Petition seeking the nullification of her marriage to the Respondent H A N S. The Respondent was duly served with both the Petition and Notice to Appear. Though the Respondent filed an acknowledgement of service filed on 3. 7.14, he did not file an Answer to the Petition. The matter therefore proceeded as undefended.
2. At the hearing, the Respondent was not present in Court though he was represented by counsel. Petitioner testified that she married the Respondent on 6. 9.13 at the Registrar’s Office in Mombasa. The certified copy of the marriage certificate serial number [Particulars Withheld] is sufficient proof of the fact of the marriage. In her evidence, the Petitioner stated that on 7. 9.13, a day after the marriage, the Respondent took off to Nairobi and then to Australia where he remains to date; that the marriage was not consummated. She prayed that the Court declare the marriage null and void.
3. As stated earlier the Respondent filed no response to this Petition. Counsel for the Respondent though present at the hearing chose not to ask the Petitioner any questions. The Petitioner’s claim that her marriage to the Respondent was never consummated has not been disputed. The evidence of the Petitioner therefore remains uncontroverted in all material respects. This court has no reason to doubt the veracity of the Petitioner’s testimony.
4. Section 73(1)(a) of the Marriage Act, 2014 provides that
“73(1) A party to a marriage may petition the court to annul the marriage on the ground that -
(a) The marriage has not been consummated since its celebration.”
Non-consummation of a marriage provides a valid ground for the nullification of that marriage. The marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent has not been consummated since its celebration. Further Section 73(2)(a) provides that
“73(2) The court shall only grant a decree of annulment if-
(a) The petition is made within one year of the celebration of the marriage.”
The marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized on 6. 9.13. The Petition was filed in Court on 7. 4.14, well within the statutory period of one year of the celebration of the marriage.
5. This Petition herein is allowed. Accordingly, I pronounce a decree of nullity and order that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent solemnised at the Registrar’s Office in Mombasa on 6. 9.13 be and is hereby annulled. Decree nisi to issue and the same to be made absolute within 30 days. There shall be no order as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED in MOMBASA this 9th day of FEBRUARY, 2016.
M. THANDE
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
………………………….… for the Applicant
…………………….........… for the Respondent
…………………………......Court Assistant
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.