A woman who took her husband of 30 years to court has won Sh500,000 in compensation after proving that his decision to introduce another woman into their matrimonial home violated her constitutional rights.
High Court judge Alfred Mebeya ruled that the man, GOB, violated BAC’s dignity by bringing his lover FC, a third party, into their matrimonial home in Kombewa, Kisumu County. The three have been identified using codenames.
The court ordered GOB and FC to pay BAC Sh500,000 in compensation for violating her rights. Justice Mebeya also directed FC to vacate the matrimonial home within 14 days of the judgment, ending a domestic arrangement that the court found had subjected BAC to humiliation, psychological distress and persistent conflict.
“A declaration is hereby issued that the conduct of the 1st respondent (GOB) in introducing and maintaining the 2nd respondent (FC) as a co-occupant in the petitioner’s matrimonial home, during the subsistence of the parties’ Christian monogamous marriage and without the petitioner’s consent, is a violation of the petitioner’s rights under Articles 28, 29, 31, 40, 43 and 45 of the Constitution,” the court ruled.
Woman wins Sh500,000 after husband moves lover into matrimonial home.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
The parties’ names have been abbreviated to protect the identity of their three minor children who live with their mother in the matrimonial home.
BAC told the court that she married GOB on March 16, 1996, in a Christian monogamous union and that they had lived in their matrimonial home since 2017.
She said that on or about May 13, 2026, her husband introduced FC into the home without her knowledge or consent and subsequently allowed her to remain there.
BAC argued that the move infringed on her dignity, privacy, health and right to peacefully occupy the home, while also affecting the welfare of their children.
Although the petition was served on both respondents, neither filed a response. The case therefore proceeded without their participation, leaving BAC’s evidence and submissions unchallenged.
Justice Mebeya said the circumstances under which BAC was compelled to share her home with another woman subjected her to humiliation and psychological distress, contrary to the constitutional protection of human dignity.
The court noted that Article 28 of the Constitution guarantees every person inherent dignity and the right to have it respected and protected. Article 29 protects individuals against violence, psychological torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The judge said the case went beyond an ordinary disagreement between spouses, noting that FC’s continued presence had disrupted BAC’s peaceful occupation of the home and triggered persistent quarrels, confrontations and disharmony.
“The court is mindful that not every disagreement or breakdown in a marriage constitutes a constitutional violation. The threshold under Article 29, particularly in relation to degrading treatment, must not be trivialised,” the judgment stated.
“Whether conduct is degrading is assessed in its context, including its duration, psychological effect and the vulnerability and circumstances of the person affected,” the court said.
“In the present case, the conduct complained of was not a single isolated domestic disagreement. On the uncontroverted evidence, it involved the unilateral introduction and continued residence of another woman in the matrimonial home during a subsisting monogamous marriage, followed by persistent conflict and interference with the petitioner’s peaceful occupation of the home,” the court ruled.
BAC told the court that the situation had caused her severe emotional distress, psychological anguish, humiliation, sleeplessness and anxiety. She also disclosed medical conditions requiring ongoing treatment.
A medical report presented to the court indicated that psychological pressure was worsening her health and that measures needed to be taken to reduce the stress she was experiencing.
The judge said the right to adequate housing extended beyond the physical structure in which a person lives to include the ability to occupy the home peacefully.
The evidence showed that BAC had lived in the matrimonial home since 2017 and that FC’s continued presence had substantially interfered with her occupation, making the domestic environment intolerable.
“The Court accordingly finds that the petitioner’s right to use and peacefully occupy the matrimonial home has been infringed by the conduct complained of,” Justice Mebeya said.
The court also considered the constitutional protection of marriage, noting that Article 45(3) guarantees spouses equal rights at the time of marriage, during the marriage and at its dissolution.
“The legal character of that marriage cannot be unilaterally altered by one spouse by simply introducing a third party into the matrimonial home and establishing a competing domestic arrangement without consultation with or consent of the other spouse,” the judgment stated.
Justice Mebeya further found that the conduct amounted to domestic violence under the Protection Against Domestic Violence Act.
