[2025] KEHC 10423 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 10423 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant established a prima facie case as there was evidence of marriage, acquisition of property during the marriage, and subsequent dissolution. The applicant's apprehension that the respondent, as the registered owner, may dispose of the properties was reasonable. However, the applicant failed to provide proof of ownership for certain assets (motor vehicles and Sagana property), so injunctive relief was limited to the matrimonial home in Mwiki, Kasarani and Kirumu Plaza. The court declined to grant a mandatory injunction restoring the applicant to the matrimonial home, finding no exceptional circumstances. The court ordered an interim injunction restraining...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 10423 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: ANM; Respondent: JMK
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
18 July 2025
Case Number
Matrimonial Cause E058 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Application partially allowed.
Judges
PM Nyaundi
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property, Injunctive Relief, Division of Property, Mandatory Injunction, Prima Facie Case
Source Language
English
Family and Children Civil Procedure Matrimonial Property Injunctive Relief Division of Property Mandatory Injunction Prima Facie Case

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ANM

Plaintiff

JMK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interlocutory injunctive orders restraining the respondent from dealing with the subject matrimonial properties pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a mandatory injunction restoring her to the matrimonial home.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant established a prima facie case as there was evidence of marriage, acquisition of property during the marriage, and subsequent dissolution. The applicant's apprehension that the respondent, as the registered owner, may dispose of the properties was reasonable. However, the applicant failed to provide proof of ownership for certain assets (motor vehicles and Sagana property), so injunctive relief was limited to the matrimonial home in Mwiki, Kasarani and Kirumu Plaza. The court declined to grant a mandatory injunction restoring the applicant to the matrimonial home, finding no exceptional circumstances. The court ordered an interim injunction restraining...

Court Disposition

Application partially allowed.

Orders

  • Interim injunction restraining the respondent, his agents, servants, employees, assigns and/or personal representatives from alienating, disposing, selling, encumbering, assigning, transferring or otherwise dealing with the matrimonial home in Mwiki, Kasarani and Kirumu Plaza pending hearing and determination of the...
  • No injunctive relief granted in respect of the motor vehicles or Sagana property.