MOOR V MOOR

Brief facts of the case

The divorce petition was filed in the Court of Appeal and presided over by Sir Raymond
Evershed, M.R., Denning and Hodson, L.JJ in May 25, 1954.
The parties were married on Dec 9, 1929, the wife being then about eighteen years of age and
the husband about twenty years of age. They frequently quarreled and in 1936 the wife left
the husband. In 1938 she formed an association with a single man with whom she had since
been living and to whom she had borne two children. In 1939 the husband formed an
association with a single woman who bore him four children. On October 25 1953, the wife
filed a petition for divorce on the ground of the husband’s adultery and prayed for the
exercise of the discretion of the court in her favour.

The issues by both parties/ issues addressed by the court

Issue 1:
Whether the utter breakdown of the marriage, as a result of adultery, was so strong an
element in considering whether a decree should be granted.
Issue 2:
Admissibility of leading questions in undefended suit.
Ruling
Issue 1: Exercise of Discretion by the Court in favour of a guilty party
The assumption that the utter breakdown of the marriage is so strong an element in
considering whether a decree should be granted that, where such a breakdown has taken
place, the discretion of the court ought always to be exercised in favour of a petitioner who
has committed adultery is wrong, but the break down of the marriage is a consideration to be
balanced against public policy which upholds the sanctity of marriage. It is relevant to
consider the circumstances in which the marriage broke down and which of the parties was
the original wrongdoer.
Issue 2: Leading Questions
It was held that to adduce evidence in undefended suits for divorce in the form of “YES” or
“NO” in answer to a series of leading questions was irregular and had the effect of making
the answers either not at all impressive or far less impressive than they otherwise would be
and it was the trial judge to stop this irregular method of conducting such cases
Principles established
Though evidence elicited with leading questions are admissible, the weight attached may be
substantially reduced.
A critic of the court
The only evidence before the court was that as a result of the protracted quarreling, the wife
left the matrimonial home. She did not give any explanation of her decision and conduct
except that there had been a series of quarrels. She was then asked questions which were in
the form of leading questions.
Question: Did you suspect that your husband was having relations with someone else?

Answer: Yes

Question: As a result of those suspicions, did you leave your house in October, 1936?

Answer: Yes, Sir

From the above questions, the expected answers were “YES” or “NO”.
Sir Raymond Evershed criticized the manner in which the questions were asked and noted
that by looking at the form of the questions, the answer carried no weight and was of no value
since it was not thought proper to make any enquiry whether she had, if so, what, grounds for
those suspicions. The wife also made no attempts to return, to effect a reconciliation, to make
any application to the husband to support her.
Lord Merriman P., also criticized leading questions and observed that the way in which
evidence is given by answering by answering “Yes” or “No” to a series of leading questions
which every experienced advocate knows to be irregular and to have the effect of making the
answers either is not at all impressive or far less impressive than they otherwise would be.
Therefore, evidence obtained by way of leading questions becomes absolutely irrelevant,
when objected, unless the court exercises its discretion to allow the witness to answer such
questions.

Appreciation for the Law

The rule prevents leading questions from being asked in examination-in-chief or in re-
examination, except with the permission of the court.

5. Link to the Kenyan law, Evidence Act

Section 150 of the Evidence Act provides that leading questions must not, if objected to by
the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief or in a re-examination, except with the
permission of the court.
The court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed,
or which have in its opinion been already sufficiently proved.
Section 151 of the Evidence Act provides that leading questions may be asked in cross-
examination.