Section 8 of the Adultery and Enticement Act 1988 keeps related claims in one proceeding.
Section 8(1) — spouse and third party
Where, in respect of an act of adultery, two actions are brought by the same person — one against the spouse and the other against the person with whom the spouse committed the act — the Court may, at its discretion, hear the two actions together.
Section 4(1) permits an action against the spouse, the other person, or both. A complainant who sues each separately — perhaps at different times, or in different circumstances — ends up with two proceedings about the same facts.
Section 8(1) lets the Court hear them together. That avoids duplicated evidence, inconsistent findings, and two sets of mediation.
The compensation position is unaffected: section 12(2) provides that where separate actions are brought by or on behalf of the same person in respect of the same act of adultery, the total compensation shall not exceed K1,000.
Section 8(2)
Where —
(a) enticement is committed; and
(b) the enticed spouse commits an act of adultery with the person who committed the enticement; and
(c) separate actions are brought in respect of the enticement and the act of adultery by the same person,
the Court may hear the actions together.
Subsection (2) applies only where the adultery was committed with the person who committed the enticement. Where one person persuades and a different person commits the adultery, the two claims are unrelated in this sense and subsection (2) does not apply.
Where it does apply, section 14 caps the total: where separate actions are brought by or on behalf of the same person in respect of the enticement and the act of adultery, the total compensation shall not exceed K1,000.00 — regardless of whether or not the actions are heard together.
So a complainant cannot recover K500 for the enticement under section 13 and K1,000 for the adultery under section 12. The joinder rule and the cap work together.
Section 8(3) — a defendant may bring in the other
Where, in respect of an act of adultery, an action is brought against only one of the parties to the act, the party against whom the action has been brought may request the Court to order that the other party be joined as defendant — and the Court may order accordingly, whether or not that other party is available or cannot be located.
| Subsection | Situation | Power |
|---|---|---|
| 8(1) | Two actions on the same act — against spouse and against the other party | Court may hear them together |
| 8(2) | Enticement, then adultery with the same person, sued separately | Court may hear them together |
| 8(3) | Only one party to the act has been sued | That defendant may request joinder of the other |
An act of adultery involves two people. A complainant might choose to sue only one — commonly the outsider rather than their own spouse.
Section 8(3) lets that defendant insist the other be joined, so the responsibility is not borne alone. It matters because of section 15: where an order for compensation is made against more than one defendant, the Court shall specify in the order the amount payable by each.
The total remains capped at K1,000 by section 12(1) whatever the number of defendants — so joinder does not increase the complainant’s recovery. It divides the burden.
An unusual provision. The Court may order joinder even where the other party cannot be found.
The reason is that section 8(3) exists for the benefit of the defendant who has been sued. If joinder were defeated by the other party’s absence, a complainant could ensure a sole defendant by suing whichever party was easier to serve.
The words allow the Court to constitute the proceeding properly, and to apportion under section 15, notwithstanding that one party is absent.
“May” throughout
Subsection (1) says the Court may, at its discretion, hear the actions together; subsections (2) and (3) likewise use “may”.
Contrast section 6, where the Court shall permit a relative to sue on satisfaction of the conditions, and section 9(2), where the Court shall dismiss the action if a defence is established.
Whether or not actions are joined, each remains subject to the same requirements: the six-month time limit in section 7, compulsory mediation under section 10, the section 9 defences, and proof on the balance of probabilities under section 19.
Sources
- Adultery and Enticement Act 1988 — ss 3–10, 12–15, 19
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the Marriage Act (Chapter 280) and check for later amendments. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.