You Can Now Divorce Any Day, Any Time – Court Ruling

They say marriage is not a bed of roses and in this day and era, we witness many marriages ending just as soon as they start.

It is no longer uncommon, or a shock for one to learn that a couple that looked so promising and in love has parted ways just shortly after they exchanged their vows.

It is not uncommon that couples start to fight and make up several times in their marriage lives until finally, they fall apart for good.

No one enters into a marriage expecting it to fail. Still, more than 20 percent of first marriages end in divorce within five years, and 48 percent of marriages dissolve by the 20-year mark.

While divorce has become such a common event that can happen at any time, Kenyan couples in civil unions have always been bound by laws of the land to only get a divorce after three years of their union.

A Kenyan judge Reuben Nyakundi, however, recently said that he found the law, in section 66 (1) of the Marriage Act that bars couples in civil unions from filing for divorce within three years of marriage unconstitutional.

In a case filed by lawyer Tukero ole Kina, who argued that the limit for filing a divorce was not applied to couples under Christian, Islam and Hindu religions, Justice Nyakundi ruled that the law be lifted for couples under civil marriages.

He argued that marriage is between two consenting individuals who should be at liberty to leave if the conditions of the union cease to be favorable for either of the two or both of them.

“It is unconstitutional to impose a three- year limitation for divorce for couples who no longer feel contented in their union. It is forcefully keeping parties in situations they no longer wish to be part of,” he said.

Lawmakers, while putting this law in place were said to have thought that the law would prevent people from moving in and out of the marriage and the period was to help people stabilize their marriages.

Justice Nyakundi, acknowledging the fact that parliament was keen on protecting marriages, said that had the parliament involved public participation, the law would not have been passed.

In its defense, parliament said that before the law was passed, public responses had been considered and factored in its decision.

The Attorney General opposed the case terming the law unconstitutional said that all laws passed by the parliament are presumed to be constitutional and it was wrong to say otherwise.

Justice Nyakundi heard the case and made a judgment that while parliament wanted to protect marriage stability, there was no reason why the same was not applied to couples in Christian, traditional, Islamic and Hindu marriages, thereby lifting the law for civil wedded couples.