THE COPPERBELT UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF LAW
NAME :RICHARD SAKALA
SIN :22112237
PROGRAMME :BACHELOR OF LAWS
TASK :ASSIGNMENT ONE
COURSE :FAMILY LAW
CODE :LS231
LECTURER :MR CHIMBA MUSONDA
DUE DATE :16TH FEBRUARY 2024

QUESTIONS
1. Below is an extract from the case of Bradley v Bradley as cited in the case of
Mutombo v Mutombo. Analyse the principle as outlined by Lord Scarman and
Lord Denning. Discuss the same, in light of s9 (1) b of the Matrimonial causes act
of Zambia as read together with, s13 of the matrimonial causes act of Zambia.
Cite relevant Zambian authority. (25 marks) QUESTION TWO With reference to
decided case law.
2. Give a legal brief on the case R v Chinjamba NRLR 6 (1949), 384 highlighting
among other things the impact of this ruling on social policy and its effect to the
concept of natural justice how the law has evolved in this regard.
In the realm of Matrimonial Law, the case of Bradley v Bradley as cited in Mutombo v
Mutombo, offers significant insights into the principles guiding marital disputes. Lord
Scarman and lord Denning elucidate pivotal considerations, shedding light on equitable
resolutions within familial relationships. This essay endeavors to dissect their principles
and juxtapose them with the provisions of the Matrimonial causes Act of Zambia,
particularly section 9(1) b in conjuction with section 13. Through a comparative analysis,
this essay aims to illuminate how Zambian jurisprudence aligns with or diverges from
the principles espoused in the aforementioned case providing a comprehensive
understanding of the Matrimonial law within the Zambian legal framework.

The law provides for grounds under which a spouse may petition for divorce under
statutory marriage. The Classical case of Bradley v Bradley1 helps us to identify the
principle with regards to divorce. This is the principle that divorce in Statutory marriage
is only valid if the marriage has been broken down irretrievably. The two lords in this
case specifically provides for the ground that when the respondent behaves in such a
way that the petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to live with the respondent.

To understand this identified principle, we will begin by understanding the words

outlined by the two lords. The learned authors of Bromley’s Family2 observes at page
267 that the preceding provision is frequently, but erroneously, abbreviated to
‘unreasoanable behavior,’’ thereby suggesting that all one has to look at, is the quality
of the respondent behavior and the effect of that behavior on the petitioner. Further, the
unreasonable behavior of the respondent is that which should suggest that all one has
to look at is the quality of respondents behavior.

Therefore, the principle simply entails that when one of the parties has behaved in such
a way that the party cannot reasonably be expected to live with him then this is enough
ground for divorce. To fully appreciate this principle, we will consider both English and
Zambian cases. The first English case is the case of Katz v Katz3 where sir George
Parker espoused and showed that the standard is that he must behave in such a way
that the petitioner doesn’t feel safe with him. It is the behavior that causes the judge to
1
[1973] 3 ALL E.R.750
2
N Lowe and G Douglas Bromley’s Family Law, Tenth Edition, (Oxford university Press,20070
3
[1972] 2 ALL E.R 219
come to the concluse. Similar sentiments were also espoused in Livingstone stallard
v Livingstone stallard4. Some celebrated Zambian case of Dewar v Dewar5 also helps
us to understand this principle when Baron J observed that what the courts has inquire
is the unreasonableness of the parties. Similarly it was held in Mahande v Mahande6
where Cullian A.J.S stated that the petitioner should prove on the balance of
probabilities.

This principle is further enshrined in section 9(1) b which provides the same, therefore
what the subsection simply entails is that the behavior which no reasonable person can
tolerate is that which is found to be grave and weighty. This section once read together
with section 13 of the Act paves a clear path with regards to unreasonable behavior. It
provides that in a petition with regards to unreasonable behavior, the parties to the
marriage should have lived with each for a period exceeding six months before the
occurrence of the final event7.

2. In the legal history, certain cases stand as pillars, shaping the landscape of justice
and societal norms. One such landmark case is R v Chinjamba, this case, while
seemingly confined to its legal confines, has left an indelible mark on social policy and
the concept of natural justice. As we delve into the intricacies of this ruling, we embark
on a journey through time and bring its profound impact on society and the evolving of
nature of the law in ensuring equity and fairness.

4
[1974] 2 ALL E.R 767
5
[1971] Z.R 38
6
[1976]Z.R 287
7
Matrimonial Causes Act number 20 of 2007