Premium
Court declines bid for three-judge bench in Christian polygamy case
A constitutional petition filed by Bonface Koimburi Ndura is challenging the legality of laws restricting Christian marriages to monogamy.
What you need to know:
- Mr Ndura filed the petition to challenge what he terms as discriminatory legal provisions that limit Christians to monogamous marriages.
- However, Justice Robert Limo dismissed the application, stating that the legal threshold for such a referral had not been met.
The High Court in Kitale has declined to appoint a three-judge bench to hear a constitutional petition filed by Bonface Koimburi Ndura, a Christian polygamy advocate and author of Polygamists Will Also Go to Heaven, who is challenging the legality of laws restricting Christian marriages to monogamy.
Justice Robert Limo, presiding over the matter, ruled that while the petition raises novel constitutional issues and matters of public interest, it does not meet the legal threshold required for referral to the Chief Justice for the empanelment of a multi-judge bench.
As a result, the case will proceed to a full hearing before a single judge.
Mr Ndura, a resident of Kitale, filed the petition to challenge what he terms as discriminatory legal provisions that limit Christians to monogamous marriages, while allowing adherents of other religions, such as Islam, to practice polygamy.
He is asking the court to declare the contested sections of the law unconstitutional, to allow Christians who support polygamy to legally marry more than one wife.
The petitioner believes that allowing Christian polygamy could reduce divorce and single-parent households, arguing that polygamy can offer ‘a more stable family structure’ in some communities.
He also took issue with Kenya’s Christian Religious Education (CRE) curriculum, calling for a complete overhaul.
He had requested the court to certify the petition as raising substantial legal questions deserving referral to Chief Justice Martha Koome.
However, Justice Limo dismissed the application, stating that the legal threshold for such a referral had not been met.
Legal imposition of monogamy
“In the absence of sufficient justification, and considering the limited judicial resources available, it is not practical to refer this matter to the Chief Justice for the empanelment of a bench,” the judge said.
The court further noted that only the first respondent had filed a response in the matter.
The Attorney General and other parties failed to appear or make submissions, a factor that the judge said made it even harder to justify the need for a larger bench.
Justice Limo emphasised that the Constitution allows any High Court judge to hear and determine constitutional petitions and cautioned against the misuse of judicial resources.
“The Judiciary cannot constitute a bench for every petition unless it is fully justified,” he stated.
Mr Ndura’s petition targets Section 171 of the Penal Code and Sections 6, 8, 9, and 11 of the Marriage Act, which codify monogamy in Christian marriages. He argues that these provisions violate Article 32 of the Constitution, which protects freedom of religion, and Article 45, which guarantees the right to marry and form a family according to one’s personal beliefs.
“Key provisions in the Penal Code and the Marriage Act unfairly impose a restrictive model of marriage on Christians, while other religious communities, such as Muslims, are legally allowed to practice polygamy,” he argued.
The petitioner contends that the modern legal imposition of monogamy is a colonial relic that contradicts biblical teachings. He cites figures such as Abraham, Jacob, and King Solomon, who all had multiple wives, as evidence that polygamy has historical and theological roots in Christianity.
“The modern legal imposition of monogamy is a colonial relic that contradicts traditional Christian teachings,” he stated.
He further argues that legalizing polygamy within Christian contexts could help reduce rising divorce rates and single-parent households, offering what he described as ‘a more stable family structure’ in certain communities.
“This move would create legal parity between Christian and Muslim communities, where polygamy is already recognized,” he said.
The case will be mentioned again on October 30, 2025, for further directions on the full hearing. The petitioner still has the option to appeal or challenge the decision through legal channels.
