[2017] KEHC 5847 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 5847 (KLR)

The court found that, although the Matrimonial Property Act requires proof of contribution for the division of matrimonial property, the constitutional imperative of equality under Article 45(3) prevails in the event of inconsistency. Since neither party provided concrete evidence of their respective contributions to the acquisition of the assets, the court presumed equal contribution by both spouses. Therefore, the assets acquired during the marriage are to be divided equally between the parties.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 5847 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: B M M; Defendant: E G M
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
5 May 2017
Case Number
Civil Suit 79 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Originating Summons allowed; assets to be divided equally; each party to bear own costs.
Judges
DN Musyoka, MW Muigai
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property, Division of Assets, Contribution to Property, Constitutional Rights in Marriage
Source Language
English
Family and Children Matrimonial Property Division of Assets Contribution to Property Constitutional Rights in Marriage

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B M M

Plaintiff

E G M

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assets acquired during the marriage should be divided equally between the parties at dissolution of marriage.
  2. 2 Whether the division of matrimonial property should be based on equality or on evidence of contribution by each spouse.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the Matrimonial Property Act requires proof of contribution for the division of matrimonial property, the constitutional imperative of equality under Article 45(3) prevails in the event of inconsistency. Since neither party provided concrete evidence of their respective contributions to the acquisition of the assets, the court presumed equal contribution by both spouses. Therefore, the assets acquired during the marriage are to be divided equally between the parties.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons allowed; assets to be divided equally; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • The Originating Summons dated 18th December 2013 is allowed in the terms proposed.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.