Nakuru Court Rules Four Years of Cohabitation Do Not Automatically Make a Couple Married

A Nakuru magistrate’s court has dismissed a divorce petition filed by a Kenyan man living in the United States, ruling that four years of cohabitation did not, on the evidence presented, establish a legally recognised marriage.

Senior Principal Magistrate Aloyce Ndege dismissed the case involving a man identified as BMT and his former partner, MWM, after finding insufficient grounds to presume that the couple had been married.

The ruling was delivered on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, after the man sought to dissolve the relationship on grounds of cruelty.

Why Four Years Were Not Enough

BMT told the court that he and MWM had lived together as husband and wife for four years before their relationship deteriorated and they separated in 2024.

He accused his former partner of failing to contribute towards household expenses, claiming that he had been left to shoulder the financial burden of maintaining their home.

The man, who had relocated to the United States in search of better opportunities while maintaining his home in Nakuru, also told the court that MWM had since entered another relationship.

He asked the court to presume that a marriage existed between them and grant him a divorce.

However, Magistrate Ndege found that the length of their cohabitation and the evidence presented did not justify presuming that a marriage had existed.

“I find a period of four years not that long, and given the evidence adduced by the petitioner herein, I find no quality in the short period that the parties herein cohabited to make me presume a marriage,” the magistrate ruled.

Court Dismisses Divorce Petition

The court noted that the petitioner had not produced a valid marriage certificate to establish the union.

Although MWM had been served with the petition, she neither entered an appearance nor filed a formal response. The matter therefore proceeded without a defence, with BMT giving oral testimony in support of his case.

The magistrate also questioned the purpose of presuming a marriage in proceedings where the petitioner was seeking to have that same marriage dissolved.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition as unnecessary, directing that the parties remain unmarried in the eyes of the proceedings because no legally recognised marriage had been established.

BMT was also ordered to pay the costs of the case.

What the Ruling Means for ‘Come-We-Stay’ Couples

Kenyan law recognises several forms of marriage, including Christian, civil, customary, Hindu and Islamic marriages.

Living together, commonly described as a “come-we-stay” arrangement, does not automatically establish a legally recognised marriage. However, courts may presume the existence of a marriage in appropriate circumstances where the evidence satisfies the applicable legal requirements.

Factors that may be considered include the duration of cohabitation, the parties’ capacity and intention to marry, their consent, and whether they presented themselves publicly as husband and wife.

The absence of a marriage certificate does not, by itself, settle every dispute involving a couple who have lived together. Courts must consider the circumstances and evidence in each case when determining whether a marriage can legally be presumed.