Maureen Kalomo v Sakala (HP/D 32 of 2017) [2017] ZMHC 418 (21 February 2017)

J1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMB AT THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Divorce Jurisdiction) BETWEEN: MAUREENKALaMa AND JOEL SAKALA PETITIONER RESPONDENT Before Honorable Mrs. Justice M. Mapani-Kawimbe in Chambers on 21"\ February, 2017 t For the Petitioner For the Respondent In Person In Person JUDGMENT Legislation Referred To: 1. Matrimonial Causes Act, No. 20 of 2007 This is a Petition for dissolution of marnage filed on 3rd February, 2017, by Maureen Kalomo, the Petitioner. The Petition is presented pursuant to sections 8 and 9 (1) (d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act. J2 It is common cause that the Petitioner, Maureen Kalomo, then a spinster and the Respondent, Joel Sakala, were lawfully married on 2nd April, 2001, before the Registrar of Marriages, in Lusaka. The Petitioner and the Respondent last lived as husband and wife at House NO.2, Handsworth Park, Kamloops Road, Lusaka in 2002. The Petitioner is a medical doctor and resides at Flat No. 18, Doctors Quarters, University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka, while the Respondent is a Major and Clinical Officer in the Zambia National Service and resides at House NO.6, Officers Quarters, ZNS, Luamfumu, Mansa. There are no children born to the Petitioner and the Respondent during the subsistence of their marriage. No other child now living has been born to the Respondent during the subsistence of the marriage so far as is known to the Petitioner. There are no other proceedings in any Court in Zambia or elsewhere regarding the marriage or between the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding any property of either or both of them and there are no proceedings continuing in any Court outside Zambia, J3 which are in respect of the marriage or are capable of affecting its validity or subsistence. It is the Petitioner's testimony that the marnage has broken down irretrievably by reason of the fact that the parties have lived separate and apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of this Petition, from the year 2002 to date. At trial the Petitioner confirmed the contents of her Petition. The Respondent was present and confirmed that he was not contesting the Petition and that he consents to the marriage being dissolved. I have seriously considered the Petition filed in this matter. The only ground upon which a petition for divorce may be presented to the Court is provided in section 8 of the Matrimonial Causes Act which states that: "A petition for divorce may be presented to the Court by either party to the marriage on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably". J4 In order to prove that the marnage has broken down irretrievably, the Petitioner should satisfy the Court of one or more of the facts set out in section 9 (1) (a) to (e) of the Act. Section 9 (1) (d) which is relevant to the Petition under consideration provides as follows: "9. (1) For the purposes of section eight, the Court hearing a petition for divorce shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably unless the Petitioner satisfies the Court of one or more of the following facts: (d) that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the Respondent consents to a decree being granted;". This being an undefended Petition, I find that it IS not necessary to give a lengthy judgment. Suffice it to state that upon the facts stated in the Petition and confirmed by the Petitioner in her oral testimony, I am satisfied that the marriage has broken down irretrievably on the ground that the Petitioner and the Respondent have lived separate and apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of this Petition, that is from 2002 to date. They are not willing to reconcile. I J5 I am also satisfied that the Respondent does not oppose the granting of a decree nisi. I therefore dissolve the marnage between the Petitioner and the Respondent celebrated on 2nd April, 2001 as prayed by the Petitioner and accordingly grant a decree nisi. The decree nisi will be made absolute six weeks from the date of this judgment. The question of property settlement will be determined by the learned Deputy Registrar upon application by either party. Each party will bear their costs. Dated this 21 5t day of February, 2017. f7fra-pglnU M. Mapani-Kawimbe HIGH COURT JUDGE