Verle Aurelia Jogie (Respondent) v Kevin Kumar Jogie (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0031

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

Kevin Kumar Jogie

Respondent(s)

Verle Aurella Jogie

Issue

What is the correct interpretation of “the duration of a marriage” under the Matrimonial Property Act, section 27(d)?

Facts

This appeal concerns an application for financial relief arising from a divorce. The appellant husband and the respondent wife were married on 20 February 2000. They have one child together. The husband was engaged in extra-marital affairs. The husband alleged that the marriage had broken down by 2007. They continued however to reside with their son in a one-bedroom annex until 2021 when the wife petitioned for the dissolution of the marriage. She claimed under the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act that the unreasonable behaviour of the husband was such that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. The husband initially filed an answer and cross-petition but subsequently withdrew it. Arrangements for the child were agreed and the only matter left for adjudication was the wife’s application for financial relief. The evidence was that the wife was aware of the husband’s infidelity but opted to remain in the marriage until she petitioned for divorce. The judge held that although the parties were ‘formally’ married for 22 years on paper, in reality their marriage had broken down after seven years. It therefore could not be said that after 2007/2008 the parties produced any financial product for their common benefit. After that point, it could not be said that there was an expectation, common intention, desire or understanding to acquire anything for their joint benefit or to do anything with a common intention, save for the benefit of the child. The judge found in favour of the wife and ordered that the husband pay her a lump sum of $300,000 within three months, that the husband continue the arrangement for her to remain in the annex for up to three months, and that if he failed to do so he would pay $5,000 for each month that this was the case, but that after three months the wife would vacate the premises. The husband was also ordered to pay 75% of the wife’s costs of the action. The wife appealed, challenging the judge’s decision to grant her a lump sum of $300,000 TTD. The husband counter-appealed, challenging the judge’s costs order. The Court of Appeal held that the “duration of a marriage” has a formal start and end date which is provided for by law. A couple is married for the purposes of the Matrimonial Property Act, section 27(d), even if separated. The Court of Appeal accordingly allowed the wife’s appeal in part and increased the financial provision awarded to her to $1million TTD. The husband appeals to the Privy Council.

Date of issue

27 April 2026

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top