Upendo Lawrence v Charles Lawrence
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Malawi
- Posture
- Matrimonial Case / Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found no evidence of undue familiarity or adultery, held that the respondent's children with other women did not amount to prima facie evidence of adultery, and concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down because the parties could not live in consortium. The court therefore divorced the parties and ordered primary custody of the child to the petitioner with specified access rights for the respondent.
Court disposition
Divorce granted
Orders
- The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is dissolved.
- Primary custody of the child is awarded to the petitioner.
- The respondent is granted access once every month, on the first Saturday of each month, for at least eight hours until the child is five years old.
- When the child is five years old, the respondent may take the child for a weekend until the child is 10 years old.
02
Material facts
Parties
UPENDO LAWRENCE
Petitioner Counsel: Counsel ChizimbaCHARLES LAWRENCE
Respondent Counsel: Counsel DzikawandaAmounts and remedies
- Monthly Access Duration (hours): 8
- Access Day Each Month: 1
- Age Until Which Monthly Access Applies (years): 5
- Age Until Which Weekend Access Applies (years): 10
03
Procedural history
Posture
Matrimonial Case / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down
- 02
Whether the respondent's children with other women established adultery
- 03
What custody and access arrangements were appropriate for the child
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Judgment text
The existence of children with other women was not prima facie evidence of adultery.
- 02
Judgment text
Section 23 of the Constitution allows children to know their parents and be raised by them.
- 03
Judgment text
Where spouses cannot live peacefully in consortium and the marriage has irretrievably broken down, a decree of divorce may follow.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found no evidence of undue familiarity or adultery, held that the respondent's children with other women did not amount to prima facie evidence of adultery, and concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down because the parties could not live in consortium. The court therefore divorced the parties and ordered primary custody of the child to the petitioner with specified access rights for the respondent.
Obiter and limits
- The petitioner knew of the respondent's two children before the marriage and was expected to make reasonable accommodation.
- The respondent must provide for his children and remain bound to them.
Court disposition
Divorce granted
- The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is dissolved.
- Primary custody of the child is awarded to the petitioner.
- The respondent is granted access once every month, on the first Saturday of each month, for at least eight hours until the child is five years old.
- When the child is five years old, the respondent may take the child for a weekend until the child is 10 years old.
Source and reliance status
Official court record
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.
Court record
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
FAMILY AND PROBATE DIVISION MATRIMONIAL CASE NUMBER: 31/23
BETWEEN UPENDO LAWRENCE ..........---esseeesssccesesseeessesaeseceesceueeececccsee. PETITIONER AND CHARLES LAWRENCE ...........2esscccssssceesssecssssscedasestsseseteccecese. RESPONDANT CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE JEAN ROSEMARY KAYIRA Counsel Chizimba for the petitioner Counsel Dzikawanda counsel for the Respondant Ms. C. Kazembe Court Clerk and Official Interpreter Core eecerervccceroeeeececeseevceccceecccccceseeeces Having listened to the parties there is no evidence of undue familiarity couple with opportunities to have sexual intercourse what is however there is the lack of consortium the fact that the respondent had children with other two women is not prima facil evidence of adultery, the existence of the children mean that he was supposed to provide for then but also bound with them Section 23 of the constitution allows the children to know their parents and to be raised by the said parents, This mean reasonable accommodation on the part of the petitioner who knew the existence lof the two children prior to the marriage. Her failure to do so meaning that she has failed to live peacefully with the respondent in other words the two cannot be expected to live in consortium. i This compels this court to divorce the two because the marriage has irretrievably broken down, Primary custody of the child to be with the petitioner the respondent has accessibility rights at least once every month, that is on the first Saturday of each month for at least eight hours until the child is five years which time he can take for a weekend until she is 10years of age. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COUB1 fy /07/2024 AT 10:30AM.
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.