By GASTONE VALUSI
A Kamba customary marriage that lasted barely a month has been dissolved by the Wamunyu Law Courts in Machakos, but the man who paid more than Sh1 million to formalise the union will not get his money back.
Senior Resident Magistrate Pascal Nabwana, in Divorce Cause E001 of 2026, SWM versus MNS and another, found that a valid customary marriage existed between petitioner SWM and first respondent MNS after the Ntheo and Ngasya rites were conducted on November 7, 2025.
The court noted that although the union was never registered as required under Section 43 of the Marriage Act, 2014, modern High Court jurisprudence allows equitable exceptions where the core requirements of a customary marriage have been met.
According to court papers, SWM had approached MNS for marriage in 2022 before formalising the union in 2025 at a total cost of Sh1,169,650. The expenditure covered livestock, traditional tokens, celebrations and transport.
He also told the court that he had invested Sh300,000 to establish a salon business for his wife.
However, the marriage collapsed within weeks.
In his testimony, SWM said the couple separated within a month of the customary rites, after which MNS cut off communication and told her mother at their home that she was no longer interested in the marriage.
Attempts by family members to reconcile the couple failed.
The court found that SWM had suffered heartache and emotional hardship and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, leaving no basis for preserving the union.
While granting the dissolution, however, Magistrate Nabwana rejected the petitioner’s claim for a refund of dowry and other expenses.
The court described the claim as “completely legally flawed and culturally unsustainable.”
The judgment explained that marriage under Kamba customary law is a trilateral arrangement involving the groom, the bride and their respective clans, with the return of dowry governed by traditional dispute-resolution mechanisms.
The magistrate said parties cannot bypass clan elders and go directly to court to seek financial restitution.
According to the judgment, traditional mechanisms, including formal meetings of clan elders, auditing of gifts and symbolic returns, must first be exhausted before a claim for restitution can be considered by a court.
The court further found that dowry is not paid directly to the bride and that the first respondent had not personally received any dowry.
The evidence showed that the gifts and traditional tokens had been distributed among various family members, aunts and clan elders, known as Wazee, in accordance with Akamba tradition.
The petitioner therefore could not make a blanket claim against two individuals for assets that had been distributed across the wider family and clan.
The court also found that a significant portion of the financial claim comprised items that were not recoverable under Kenyan law.
These included goats slaughtered during the ceremonies, beer, soda and large quantities of food prepared and consumed by the parties and their guests.
The magistrate held that such items constituted customary gifts and entertainment expenses and did not form part of returnable dowry.
The court similarly rejected claims relating to commercial public address equipment costing Sh80,000, catering services worth Sh180,000, clothing and Mavazi valued at Sh100,000, and fuel and transportation expenses of Sh300,000.
The magistrate found that these were logistical and personal choices made by the petitioner to facilitate the ceremonies and could not be treated as dowry under Kamba customary law.
The court noted that the customary law recognises specific items, including Mbui sya Ntheo and Ngasya livestock, as part of the traditional marriage arrangements.
Despite finding that the marriage had completely collapsed, the court ruled that the financial claims lacked legal merit.
Magistrate Nabwana therefore dissolved the Kamba customary marriage between the petitioner and first respondent and ordered that a Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute issue contemporaneously, the marriage having ceased to exist both in fact and purpose.
The petitioner’s prayers for a refund of dowry, transport, catering expenses and business capitalisation were dismissed.
