Kenyan men have won big after the High Court nullified a section of the Succession law for being discriminatory. In a land mark ruling, the High Court has declared that section 29 (c) of Law of Succession Act is unconstitutional.
The law has been requiring widowers to prove that they were dependent on their deceased wives before they can inherit and, or benefit from their late wives’ estate. According to the ruling that was delivered by Justice Lawrence Mugambi, whereas the rule made the requirement mandatory for men, it did not demand the same from women.
“I find that there is discriminatory definition of the word ‘dependant’ whereby Section 29 (c) of the Law of Succession requires the husband of a deceased wife to prove dependency while no such condition is required under Section 29 (a) of the Law of Succession on a deceased husband’s wife, hence Section 29 (c) cannot stand constitutional scrutiny,” Justice Mugambi ruled.
The ruling followed a case in which a judicial officer who was identified as DKM filed a petition seeking nullification. In his petition, DKM had argued that the section was prejudicial to his interests as it required him to prove that he was a dependent of his late wife prior to her death in order to be considered a beneficiary of her estate.
READ MORE: Rich wife – Poor husband: Can this marriage ever work in Kenya?
DKM then informed the court that there was no corresponding requirement for wives when their husbands die, which made the section discriminatory against men.
In his ruling, Justice Mugambi declared that the constitution is categorical in Article 45 (3) that parties to a marriage (husband and wife) are entitled to equal rights at the time of marriage, during marriage and at the dissolution of marriage.
“By applying different standards as is evident in Section 29 (c), [the section] discriminates against the man in the relationship based on sex, which is a prohibited ground under Article 27 (4) of the constitution, and also undermines the spirit of equality reinforced under Article 45 (3) as the dominant principle for such unions.”
