Wife gets divorce wish against adulterous pastor
The High Court has ruled that in a case where each party claims absolute ownership, the onus is on the parties to prove their contribution to the acquisition of the disputed land. Justice John Onyiego also ruled that it is not enough to claim a right without providing evidence of the right through contribution, whether direct or indirect.
Though the seventh commandment in the Bible states “Thou shall not commit adultery', a pastor in Kitui was unable to observe the same and ended up cohabiting with another woman.
His wife, whose secondary school education he had sponsored, was unable to withstand the infidelity and petitioned a court for dissolution of the marriage. At the time, she had three children.
They started having problems while she was in Form two. She investigated and established that the pastor was having an affair and when she challenged him he admitted to adultery.
Not in talking terms
They continued to live together but were not in talking terms. After she completed high school, she went to her parent’s home and thereafter got a job.
The man also alleged adultery against the woman, but the court found that this hadn’t been proven.
“To the contrary, it is stated and not denied that it is the man who is guilty of adultery and is currently cohabiting with another woman despite the fact that he is a pastor,” said Justice Lilian Mutende.
The man said the marriage could not be salvaged. He had testified that the woman, after going to back to school, became unfaithful.
Antagonising
He stated that in the year 2013, she started antagonising him by deserting the matrimonial home and bed, committed adultery, and was guilty of cruelty.
He added that the marriage between them had broken down irretrievably and there was no reasonable probability of salvaging it due to the hurdles she had set up against their reconciliation.
In her testimony, the woman stated that as a result of the illicit affair the man was having, she had been forced her to take refuge at her parents' home.
The court said it was an exercise in futility to continue binding them together when they could not live together.
