Automated Summary
Key Facts
The petitioner and respondent married under Customary Law in 1999 and formalized the marriage in Nairobi on 28th July 2009. The respondent left for the United States in August 2009 without informing the petitioner, cutting off all communication. The petitioner alleged desertion, lack of financial support, and marital breakdown. The court found the respondent's desertion and failure to provide for the family justified the divorce. The marriage was dissolved, with the petitioner awarded custody of their child born in 2000. No costs order was issued.
Issues
The court determined that the respondent's desertion of the matrimonial home in 2009, coupled with a lack of communication, constitutes a valid ground for divorce under Kenyan law. The marriage was dissolved, and custody of the child was granted to the petitioner.
Holdings
The court determined that the respondent's desertion of the matrimonial home constituted a valid ground for divorce under Kenyan law. The marriage, initially solemnized under Customary Law and later converted to a Statutory Marriage on 28 July 2009, was dissolved. The court issued a decree nisi to be made absolute 30 days from the judgment date, granted the petitioner custody of the child, and made no orders regarding costs.
Remedies
- Decree nisi dissolving the said marriage is hereby issued. The decree nisi shall be made absolute thirty (30) days from the date of this judgment.
- The petitioner shall have the custody of the child of the marriage.
- There shall be no orders as to costs.
- The marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent is hereby dissolved.
Legal Principles
The court granted the petition for divorce based on the respondent's desertion of the matrimonial home, as outlined in the Marriage Act. The judgment emphasizes that desertion without communication and failure to provide family upkeep constitute valid grounds for dissolution of marriage under Kenyan law.
Cited Statute
Marriage Act (Kenya)
Judge Name
L. KIMARU
Passage Text
- This court is satisfied that, indeed, the respondent deserted the matrimonial home... He left the country and re-located to the United States of America without having the courtesy of consulting the petitioner.
- The respondent was served with the petition for divorce. He did not enter appearance. Neither did he file papers in answer to the petition.
- The respondent left the matrimonial home for the United States of America without informing her. The petitioner avers that since then, the respondent had cut off all communication with her necessitating the petitioner to file the present petition for divorce.