PRESUMPTIONS UNDER THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

The question that arises is whether the presumption of validity applies in the marriage between T and M in 1980.In this particular case therefore T has to prove to the court beyond reasonable doubt that there was no valid marriage between T and M. In the case ofMahadervan v Madavervan Where there was marriage in Ceylon and the requirements of  Ceylonese marriage was; marriage be solemnized by the registrar in an authorized place ,registrar  to give a speech on the nature of the union created .After  marriage ceremony ,they cohabited for a short while.

                      Seven years later ,the man entered into a marriage with an English lady .When the first wife learned of it, she sought to challenge the validity .The  question that arose was whether the  first marriage was valid  since there was no  evidence of the address by the registrar and the certificate brought was not very clear, whether the ceremony was performed in the office of the registrar or in their house. It was held that the presumption did not apply in favour of the foreign marriage .The presumption of the essential of validity of marriage  was made in favour of the existing first marriage by virtue of proving  that some ceremony took place         

                                  The issue that arises therefore in this case is that T has to adduce evidence to prove to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the marriage between M and A which was celebrated in 1978 was valid and that she has to adduce evidence to prove that A is still alive and kicking i.e. the burden of proving lies on her.

            The presumption of validity of marriage dictates therefore that there are laws which          prescribe certain formal requirements depending on the place where the marriage is celebrated e.g if it’s a hindu.T has to prove that all this requirements were met .In the case of  Piers v Piers (1849) Where the couple got married in a private dwelling house while the law required as a prerequisite for the validity of such a marriage,that a special licence be obtained.The pierses did not get that kind of licence and when the marriage turned sour, the validity of marriage was questioned.It was held that the presumption of marriage in favour of the legality of marriage should be strong supported by strong evidence in disprove and cannot be wished away.Similarly in the case of Avonegary v Sembecutty The court held that when a man and a woman who have been proved of living together then the law presume they together in consequence of a valid marriage and therefore one need not prove all elements of ceremonies performed.In the case of Re V Liddler date (1912) S 7 SJ.3 It was held that when a question arose as to validity of second marriage the court will consider whether first husband is to be presumed dead, the court can take into consideration the whole period down to the date of hearing and not limited to the facts as they existed at the date of second marriage.

            T has to to the court that she is indeed free to contract another marriage.In the case of Bradshaw V Bradshaw Where the parties celebrated in 1940.In 1950.the man deserted the lady.Went to court to obtain an order of maintenance.Unfortunately the lady had been married else where in 1916.In 1921 her Indian husband obtained a decree nisi.unknown the decree nisi rescinded which meant they were back to being husband and wife hence no capacity to contract another marriage.the order of maintenance was quashed stating that the she had not succeeded in proving that she was free  in another contract of marriage.In Re peete,peete V Crompton It was held that the existence of the first marriage between Wand X in 1916,incapacitated W in the 1919 marriage to Y(W lacked the capacity to marry Y in 1919because of her 1916 marriage toX).

            Similarly in the case of Wanjiku V Macharia (1968) It was held that the presence of an earlier marriage between Wanjiku and another man invalidated the second marriage.In the case of Chipchase VChipchase (1939)p 391 The wife married H1 in 1915 and having heard nothing of him after 1916 went through a ceremony of marriage with H2 in 1928.When the applied for maintenance order against H2 in 1939 it was successfully objected that the marriage of 1928 was not shown to be valid, there being no evidence that H1 was dead in that year.

            Similarly in the case of Chard V Chard (1956)P259 The learned judge refused to presume a wife to be dead even though there was no evidence that she had been alive since 1918.The issue was whether she was alive in 1933 (when she would have been aged 43)in which year the husband had gone through a ceremony of marriage with the petitioner, who now sought a decree of nullity based on its bigamous character .The husband had spend most of the intervening period in prison,and there was no any person likely to have heard of the first wife during this time,SachsJ             held that the presumption of death could not apply,and granted the decree.

            The evidence brought

 forward to certify the  existence of  marriage between M and N will invalidate her marriage  with M.In the case of R  v  Willshire (1881) 6 QBD  366  Where  the accused  person  was charged  with  bigamy  for marrying  B when  in  his  life time  marriage  with  A in  1864.The  evidence  shows that  the  accused   had  undergone  four  consecutive  ceremonies  with  A,B,C,D.The  accused  person  married  D  in his  lifetime  with  C  and was  charge  with  bigamy. He was convicted.  The  court  of  appeal  quashed  the  conviction  stating  that  the  prosecution  had  failed   to  discharge  the  validity  of  1879  marriage   i.e.  they  had  failed  to  give  rise  to  the   presumption  of validity  in  the 1879  marriage  Similarly  in case   of   Gatty  v  Attorney  General. The   petitioner   in   a legitimacy   suit had been born in 1901. His   parents  had  gone  through   a  ceremony   of  marriage   in  1897.After  his    father   had   obtained  a  decree of  divorce  in  the  state  of     North   Dakota    earlier   in  the   same  year.  For  various   reasons   of   law  there  was   some  doubt   as  to   whether   the  North  Dakota   decree  was  valid . It  was  held  that  because  of  the  presumption   that  the  fathers   first  marriage   was  valid ,   the  petitioner    must   prove   all   the   facts   necessary  to  show   that   the   North   Dakota  decree was   valid .

            Similarly in case of  Taylor  v Taylor. Where   the  petitioner  sought   a  decree  of  divorce  with   respect   to  her   marriage   to the   respondent , which  was  contracted   in  1942.Whether   this   marriage   was  valid  depended    upon   the  validity  the   petitioners  earlier  marriage  contracted  in  1928. Cairns j  found    as  a  fact  that   there  was no  decisive  evidence   that  the   1928  was   invalid ,  and  that   a   doubtful  earlier   marriage  was  insufficient   to  overcome  the  presumption  of  validity   of the latter   marriage.

            Since  F   is  un able   to   prove   that   indeed   there   was    the   existence   of  a  valid    marriage   between  T and  M, Ts   intention   to   adduce evidence  to  make   her    marriage   with   M  invalid   will  lead   to   validity    of    her   marriage   with  F therefore   weakening   the   defense  F.

            In the case of Monckton v Tarr where a woman A married B in 1882.B deserted her in 1887. When there was no evidence that  B  was  alive in  1895. A married  C .In 1913  while A  still  alive  C married  D.There   after  C  died .D the wife of C  made  a claim  for  benefits. The  employer   said  that  they  did not  recognize  C’s  claim because  they based  on   the 1913  marriage   which   was  invalid. This is because the between   A and   C   had not been resolved. But C argued that the   marriage   of   1895 was  invalid   because   of   1882  marriage. The   court  found   on  the  basis  of  the  employer  .On   appeal  the  court  dismissed  it   asserting   that  although  the  presumption  of  validity  applied  in  favour  of    the  1895  marriage.Consequently   the  two presumptions  council   each  other and  it  was  up  to  D  to prove  that  C  had  the  capacity   to   marry   her   in   1913.

            The   presumption  of  validity  has  also  been   clearly   underlined   in  the   following   case  of   R e  Ruenjes Estate  v R  K.L.R  1977  Where  a Kikuyu  domiciled  in Kenya  contracted   a valid  marriage .Although  no  decree  of  divorce   had been   granted   he   participated  in  ceremonies   of  marriage  in  accordance  with  kikuyu  customary  law  with  two  other  ladies on subsequent  occasions. After his  death, claims  were made  to  his  estate  on  the  basis  of  the  validity  of  the  kikuyu  ceremonies  of  marriage. It  was  held  that  in  the  absence   of  a  decree  of  divorce  the  claims  could  not  be  allowed  as   section   37  of  the  marriage  Act  precluded  any  person  whose  marriage  was  regarded  valid  under  that Act (as  the  deceased’s   Christian   marriage  was )  from  contracting  a  valid   marriage  under   customary  law  or   custom  during  the  subsistence  of  that  marriage.

            similarly  in   the  case  of  K(otherwise B) v K. E.A  L.R  1972  The   respondent  was  married  to  another  woman  by  Kikuyu  customary  law  at the  time  when  he  purported  to  marry  the   petitioner   in  the  registrars  office, Nairobi   under  the  provision s  of   the   marriage  Act  Cap (150).The  petitioner  prayed   four  a  decree  of  nullity ,contending  that  the  respondent  was  incapable  of  contracting  a  valid   monogamous  marriage. It  was  held that  only  a monogamous  marriage  can  be  created  by  a  ceremony   under   the  marriage  Act, as the  respondent  was  already   married  by  kikuyu  customary  law, the  ceremony  was  invalid

            Consent of   marriage   obtained    fraudulently   leads to automatic   invalidity. In  this   case  where  M  new  that  he  was   married  to  A  but  nevertheless  went  ahead  to   obtain  consent  from  T to  marry   In   the  case  of  Bashford  v Shabani  E.A L.R  1971   where  the  parties  were  Muslims   who  were  married  according  to  Muslim  law  in  Ontario Canada. It was part of the bargain that the respondent husband was single. On arrival in Tanzania. The   petitioner  wife  discovered  that  the  respondent  had  two  other  wives .The  petitioner  left  the  respondent  and  petitioned  for  a  decree  of  nullity.

            It   was  held  that  where  consent   is  obtained  by  fraud  or  force  , a Muslim  marriage  is  void  unless  ratified  ,the  petitioners  consent  was  obtained  by   fraud. Petition granted.