Man fails in bid to stop pay to ex-wife at Supreme Court
What you need to know:
- In declining to hear the case, the judges dashed the hopes of many men who had hoped the apex court would set a precedent.
- The Court of Appeal judges dismissed the case, saying that if he previously made the payments, on what basis then should he turn around and demand that he should be excused now.
- Mr Munro said the woman was capable of fending for herself and gave examples that she owned a boat and trailer and a grand house in a desirable location in England.
The Supreme Court yesterday dashed the hopes of a man who was seeking to be allowed not to provide for his ex-wife on the basis that she is capable of fending for herself.
Mr Charles Michael Angus Walker Munro had moved to the Supreme Court seeking to reverse a decision of the Court of Appeal, requiring him to provide for his former wife, Pamela Ann Walker Munro. Mr Munro is a Kenyan while the woman is a Briton who had settled with him in Kilifi.
Five judges of the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal stating that they have no jurisdiction. According to the bench led by Chief Justice David Maraga, Jackton Ojwang’, Njoki Ndung’u and Smokin Wanjala, the case was a family issue.
SECOND MARRIAGE
The court said this is a family dispute in which the main issue of contestation has always revolved around the award of alimony. At no stage has it transmuted into a constitutional question.
In declining to hear the case, the judges dashed the hopes of many men who had hoped that the apex court would set a precedent by ruling in favour of Mr Munro.
Court papers showed that the two were married in May 31, 1997 in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, England. Both were going through a second marriage.
They lived and cohabited at various places in England until 2007 when they relocated to Kenya and settled in Kilifi.
The court heard that all was well until March, 2009 when Mr Munro left for England to ostensibly attend a wedding but he never returned.
Ms Munro accused the former husband of reneging on the payment of her maintenance, welfare and upkeep. She argued that whereas he is a Kenyan by birth, she was a housewife and a British citizen staying in Kenya.
SH250,000
When she moved to court in 2013, seeking dissolution of their marriage, she sought alimony of Sh250,000 per month, pending the divorce. The woman argued that she has no work permit and cannot therefore engage in any gainful employment.
She accused him of desertion by leaving the matrimonial home in Kilifi for England where he began or continued an adulterous relationship with another woman.
She said he was a rich man but had refused to pay her a single cent by way of alimony or maintenance. She said the matrimonial home was large and grounds expansive requiring personnel to tend them.
In reply, Mr Munro said the woman was capable of fending for herself and gave examples that she owned a boat and trailer and a grand house in a desirable location in England.
Besides, she lives alone and has no dependant and also receives part of the naval pension from her first husband.
INCOMES
He also argued that she should go back to England and look for a job in England but instead, she has opted to stay in Kenya on a permanent holiday and expected him to maintain “her luxurious lifestyle”.
Justice Christine Meoli had in May 2013, ruled that he pays her and interim alimony in the sum of Sh127,000 per month.
But Mr Munro appealed the decision, arguing that spouses had a duty to maintain themselves. And in the event that she was unable to be gainfully employed in Kenya, she should pack her bags and head back to England.
Justices Asike Makhandia, William Ouko and Kathurima M’Inoti noted that there were serious misgivings from both parties regarding their incomes.
They said the trial judge had noted that in her initial affidavit, the woman “cut a forlorn figure financially” until the man filed a replying affidavit showing that she had her own assets in England.
PLAY BALL
The Court of Appeal judges dismissed the case, saying that if he previously made the payments, though she still had her own income, on what basis then should he turn around and demand that he should be excused from maintaining such responsibility.
“The fact that the appellant abandoned the respondent, a foreigner, is the more reason that the appellant should be called upon to maintain her at the same level as when they were cohabiting and before the desertion. The appellant cannot be heard to say that if the respondent was marooned here she should make her way back to her motherland. We think that such submission is outrageous, offensive and heartless. The appellant brought her here and must therefore play ball,” the judges said.
With the decision, the man moved to the Supreme Court hoping to reverse the decision.
