Wakilii

Morrice v Morrice and Another (Divorce Cause No. 4 of 1942)

East African Court of Appeal · [1942] EACA 23 · 1942 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to abridge time between decree nisi and decree absolute in divorce proceedings
Decision
Petitioner granted liberty to apply for decree absolute approximately one month after decree nisi, subject to filing supplementary affidavits

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 granted the petitioner's application to abridge the six-month period between decree nisi and decree absolute under section 14(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance. The applicant demonstrated special circumstances: he had been invalided from the Army, suffered from a serious illness requiring specialist treatment, had custody of a 12-year-old son requiring female supervision, and intended to marry a qualified nurse who would care for both him and his son. The King's Proctor raised no objection.

Outcome

Petitioner granted liberty to apply for decree absolute approximately one month after decree nisi, subject to filing supplementary affidavits

Facts

The petitioner obtained a decree nisi in divorce proceedings and applied to abridge the statutory six-month period before the decree could be made absolute. He had been invalided out of the Army on pension and suffered from a serious illness, possibly tuberculosis, requiring specialist treatment potentially outside the Colony. Medical certificates confirmed his poor health and stated that marriage would benefit his condition, particularly regarding dietary care. The petitioner had custody of his 12-year-old son who required female supervision. A qualified nurse specialising in tuberculosis treatment was willing to marry the petitioner and assume guardianship of his son. The King's Proctor was served with the application and raised no objection.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should grant a special order abridging the time between decree nisi and decree absolute in divorce proceedings.

Orders

  • Application for special order granted.
  • Petitioner at liberty to apply for decree absolute on or after 24th October 1942, subject to filing of supplementary affidavits.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Family Law — Divorce — Abridgement of Time Between Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute — Special Order
Under section 14(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance, the Court has discretion to abridge the six-month period between decree nisi and decree absolute by special order where the applicant demonstrates special circumstances justifying such abridgement.
Family Law — Divorce — Abridgement of Time — Grounds — Ill Health and Child Welfare
Serious ill health of the petitioner requiring immediate medical attention and specialist treatment, combined with the welfare interests of a child in the petitioner's custody requiring female supervision, constitute special circumstances warranting abridgement of the statutory six-month period.
Family Law — Divorce — Six-Month Interval — Purpose
The object of the six-month interval between decree nisi and decree absolute is to enable the King's Proctor to make inquiries as to the bona fides of the petitioner's case, and is not intended as a test of the petitioner's morality.
Civil Procedure — King's Proctor — Functions in Kenya — Matrimonial Causes
In Kenya, the King's Proctor functions only under section 32 of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance and does not concern himself with inquiries as to bona fides in divorce proceedings, unlike the practice in England.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Matrimonial Causes Ordinance s.14(1)
  • Matrimonial Causes Ordinance s.32

Cases cited (7)

  • Skelton v Skelton (1869) L.J. (P.C.) 34
  • M falsely called B v R (1872) 3 P.D. 200
  • Rippingall v Rippingall (1883) 48 L.T.R. 126
  • P v P (1927) 44 T.L.R. 114
  • Osborn v Osborn (1926) 70 Sol. Jo. 388
  • Edye v Edye (Divorce Cause No. 5 of 1941)
  • Reeves v Reeves (1939) 4 A.E.R. 375

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Morrice v Morrice and Another (Divorce Cause No. 4 of 1942) [1942] EACA 23 (1 January 1942)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.