Court allows man to bury estranged wife

A Nairobi court on Wednesday permitted a retired Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation chief finance officer to bury his wife in accordance to his community’s traditions.

Senior Resident Magistrate Agnes Makau ruled that James Matele had the legal right to bury his wife, Beatrice Nyongesa.

Ms Nyongesa was a senior lecturer at Kitale National Polytechnic. She died on March 15 at Nairobi Women’s Hospital.

SEPARATED

Mr Matele had sued his brother-in-law, Sylvester Wabusya, for denying him the right to bury his wife on grounds that the two had separated.

Mr Wabusya was opposed to the burial of his sister at his brother-in-law’s home, arguing that she had separated with her husband before she died.

He argued that the marriage between the two ended after thy separation and that his brother-in-law had no right to bury his younger sister.

But in her ruling, the magistrate stated that the two were still married in spite of their separation since their marriage had not been dissolved under customary law or in court.

The magistrate indicated that the two were separated for a long time, but they did not follow the due legal procedure or their Luhya tradition to dissolve their marriage.

She indicated that some of the evidence produced by the petitioner was a letter showing exchange of dowry between his parent and the deceased’s father.

DOWRY

Ms Makau further ruled that despite their separation, the deceased and her children continued to reside in the petitioner’s house in Highrise Estate, Nairobi.

She ruled the Mr Wabusya testified and admitted that his brother-in-law had brought four cows to his late father as dowry.

The court further ruled that the payment of dowry is a clear indication of the existence of customary marriage between Mr Matele and Ms Nyongesa.

“I find that the plaintiff is legally married to the deceased. There is proof they had married, and that he paid dowry for her in spite of their separation. The marriage had not been dissolved through customary means or in the court of law,” she ruled.

The court observed that the petitioner was in close communication with the deceased and even visited her while she was admitted at hospital until her death. The couple had five children.