Article 163 (4) (b) wields a humongous potential for the advancement of administration of justice... more Article 163 (4) (b) wields a humongous potential for the advancement of administration of justice. The generous interpretation afforded to the provision by the Supreme Court in Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone (hereinafter the Hermanus Steyn case), particularly with regards the jurisdictional remit of the provision, the certification requirement, as well as the meaning of the phrase “a matter of general public importance”, makes the provision an even better vehicle for the advancement of administration of justice. However, the realization of the full potential of this provision has proved difficult owing to the numerous challenges and pitfalls in its interpretation and application.
This paper explores how Article 163 (4) (b) and the generous interpretation afforded to it in the Hermanus Steyn case has contributed to the advancement of administration of justice. The paper further delves into the challenges and pitfalls that have hindered the full realization of the provision’s potential. Also, the paper discusses the opportunities for the advancement of administration of justice that have been presented by the provision and its broad interpretation. The paper then concludes with a comparative analysis of Jamaica and Zambia, both of which have provisions identical to Article 163 (4) (b). The comparative analysis focuses on how such provisions have been interpreted by the respective jurisdictions’ courts to ensure the advancement of administration of justice.
The Supreme Court in Petition 9 of 2021 (hereinafter the Mary Kangara case) made a landmark decis... more The Supreme Court in Petition 9 of 2021 (hereinafter the Mary Kangara case) made a landmark decision with far-reaching implications in the realm of family law. Specifically, the decision had implications on inter alia: the jurisprudence relating to the distribution of property acquired in the course of cohabitation, the jurisprudence relating to presumption of marriage and the principle of retrospective application of legislation.
This paper delves into the profound implications of this ground-breaking decision, with a key focus on its implications on the distribution of property acquired during the subsistence of cohabitation. While at it, the paper explores the legal intricacies and the underlying principles of the judgment with the hope of providing a deeper understanding of the transformative potential of the decision, especially when it comes to the protection of cohabitants’ proprietary rights. Furthermore, the paper critically analyses the diverse approaches to the distribution of property between cohabitants taken by different jurisdictions, viz: Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The paper then concludes with an analysis of the import of the Supreme Court decision on property acquired by cohabitants in Kenya.
Article 163 (4) (b) wields a humongous potential for the advancement of administration of justice... more Article 163 (4) (b) wields a humongous potential for the advancement of administration of justice. The generous interpretation afforded to the provision by the Supreme Court in Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone (hereinafter the Hermanus Steyn case), particularly with regards the jurisdictional remit of the provision, the certification requirement, as well as the meaning of the phrase “a matter of general public importance”, makes the provision an even better vehicle for the advancement of administration of justice. However, the realization of the full potential of this provision has proved difficult owing to the numerous challenges and pitfalls in its interpretation and application.
This paper explores how Article 163 (4) (b) and the generous interpretation afforded to it in the Hermanus Steyn case has contributed to the advancement of administration of justice. The paper further delves into the challenges and pitfalls that have hindered the full realization of the provision’s potential. Also, the paper discusses the opportunities for the advancement of administration of justice that have been presented by the provision and its broad interpretation. The paper then concludes with a comparative analysis of Jamaica and Zambia, both of which have provisions identical to Article 163 (4) (b). The comparative analysis focuses on how such provisions have been interpreted by the respective jurisdictions’ courts to ensure the advancement of administration of justice.
The Supreme Court in Petition 9 of 2021 (hereinafter the Mary Kangara case) made a landmark decis... more The Supreme Court in Petition 9 of 2021 (hereinafter the Mary Kangara case) made a landmark decision with far-reaching implications in the realm of family law. Specifically, the decision had implications on inter alia: the jurisprudence relating to the distribution of property acquired in the course of cohabitation, the jurisprudence relating to presumption of marriage and the principle of retrospective application of legislation.
This paper delves into the profound implications of this ground-breaking decision, with a key focus on its implications on the distribution of property acquired during the subsistence of cohabitation. While at it, the paper explores the legal intricacies and the underlying principles of the judgment with the hope of providing a deeper understanding of the transformative potential of the decision, especially when it comes to the protection of cohabitants’ proprietary rights. Furthermore, the paper critically analyses the diverse approaches to the distribution of property between cohabitants taken by different jurisdictions, viz: Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The paper then concludes with an analysis of the import of the Supreme Court decision on property acquired by cohabitants in Kenya.
Uploads
Papers by Alphones Owino
This paper explores how Article 163 (4) (b) and the generous interpretation afforded to it in the Hermanus Steyn case has contributed to the advancement of administration of justice. The paper further delves into the challenges and pitfalls that have hindered the full realization of the provision’s potential. Also, the paper discusses the opportunities for the advancement of administration of justice that have been presented by the provision and its broad interpretation. The paper then concludes with a comparative analysis of Jamaica and Zambia, both of which have provisions identical to Article 163 (4) (b). The comparative analysis focuses on how such provisions have been interpreted by the respective jurisdictions’ courts to ensure the advancement of administration of justice.
This paper delves into the profound implications of this ground-breaking decision, with a key focus on its implications on the distribution of property acquired during the subsistence of cohabitation. While at it, the paper explores the legal intricacies and the underlying principles of the judgment with the hope of providing a deeper understanding of the transformative potential of the decision, especially when it comes to the protection of cohabitants’ proprietary rights. Furthermore, the paper critically analyses the diverse approaches to the distribution of property between cohabitants taken by different jurisdictions, viz: Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The paper then concludes with an analysis of the import of the Supreme Court decision on property acquired by cohabitants in Kenya.
This paper explores how Article 163 (4) (b) and the generous interpretation afforded to it in the Hermanus Steyn case has contributed to the advancement of administration of justice. The paper further delves into the challenges and pitfalls that have hindered the full realization of the provision’s potential. Also, the paper discusses the opportunities for the advancement of administration of justice that have been presented by the provision and its broad interpretation. The paper then concludes with a comparative analysis of Jamaica and Zambia, both of which have provisions identical to Article 163 (4) (b). The comparative analysis focuses on how such provisions have been interpreted by the respective jurisdictions’ courts to ensure the advancement of administration of justice.
This paper delves into the profound implications of this ground-breaking decision, with a key focus on its implications on the distribution of property acquired during the subsistence of cohabitation. While at it, the paper explores the legal intricacies and the underlying principles of the judgment with the hope of providing a deeper understanding of the transformative potential of the decision, especially when it comes to the protection of cohabitants’ proprietary rights. Furthermore, the paper critically analyses the diverse approaches to the distribution of property between cohabitants taken by different jurisdictions, viz: Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom. The paper then concludes with an analysis of the import of the Supreme Court decision on property acquired by cohabitants in Kenya.