divorce

Uganda's appeal court in new approach to division of marital property on divorce

Uganda’s Court of Appeal has handed down a decision that could prove a turning point on the question of how marital property should be divided on divorce. The judges seem to have rejected what some have seen as a growing tendency in divorce matters, namely granting women half share of a property. Instead, these judges say equality doesn’t automatically mean equity, and that a claim for half of the property must be backed by facts if it is to succeed.

Read judgment

This new decision, by three judges of Uganda’s Court of Appeal, seems to mark a third phase in efforts to ensure that women are treated equally in society and before the law in that country, particularly at divorce.

Law imposing three-year wait for divorce found unconstitutional by Kenya’s appeal court

With five forms of marriage from which to choose, couples in Kenya could find it easy enough to tie the knot. It might be a different story for some if they want an early divorce, however. That’s because those opting for a civil marriage must wait a minimum of three years before they may start divorce proceedings. Claiming this provision is unconstitutional, a Kenyan advocate has brought legal action to test the three-year limitation.

Read judgment

Couples wanting to marry in Kenya have some decisions to make: there are no fewer than five forms of marriage from which to choose.

Fairness at divorce

Two new judgments from the courts in Kenya and Zimbabwe underline changing judicial views about the role of women in building up a family home and the contribution that women, as wives and mothers, may be said, on divorce, to have made. One stresses with new urgency that women who work in the home should stand up for their rights and, at divorce, be prepared to give evidence in court about the significance of their contribution to the home.

Read Kenyan judgment

Read Zimbabwean judgment

 

Women facing divorce settlements are often particularly vulnerable to claims that they are not entitled to equal shares of matrimonial property because their financial contributions to the property had been less than the contributions of their former husbands.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - divorce
x123xx