Cogle v Cogle and Another (Cause No. 12-1930.)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Court held that when a wife is found guilty of adultery her right to alimony ceases, but the judge has discretion to continue it if reasonable. Maintenance pendente lite was allowed only up to the date of the decree nisi. The Court further held that it may in its discretion order costs to the full amount to be paid even to a guilty wife, and that the respondent was entitled to recover her costs from the petitioner.
Outcome
Maintenance granted only until decree nisi; full costs awarded to respondent despite finding of adultery
Facts
The petitioner husband sought divorce on grounds of adultery by the respondent wife with the co-respondent. The wife was found guilty of adultery and a decree nisi was made on 17th September 1930. The respondent's counsel applied for maintenance pendente lite until the decree was made absolute. The respondent was earning her living but her income was modest given the cost of living in Nairobi. The question arose whether a guilty wife retained entitlement to maintenance after the decree nisi and whether the husband was liable for her full costs despite her guilt.
Issues
- Whether a wife found guilty of adultery is entitled to maintenance pendente lite until the decree nisi is made absolute.
- Whether the Court may order a husband to pay the full costs of a wife found guilty of adultery.
Orders
- Maintenance pendente lite allowed at the rate of £8 per month up to 17th September 1930, the date of the decree nisi.
- Respondent entitled to recover her costs from the petitioner.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Divorce Ordinance Cap. 179 s.24
Cases cited (6)
- Dunn v Dunn (1888) 59 LT 885
- Wells v Wells (1864) 10 LT 696
- Ellis v Ellis (1883) 8 PD 188
- Robertson v Robertson (1881) 31 LJ 5
- Palmer v Palmer & Stockley (1914) P 116
- Butler v Butler (1890) 15 PD 130
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.