[2017] KEHC 5687 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 5687 (KLR)

The court found that the three landed properties were acquired during the marriage and, despite the defendant's claim of sole acquisition, there was a real risk of their disposal before the suit's determination. This justified granting preservation orders. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the defendant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 5687 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: D K B; Defendant: K S B
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
12 May 2017
Case Number
Civil Suit 10 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Both applications allowed in part as specified; costs in the cause.
Judges
DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property Division, Injunctive Relief, Ownership Dispute, Preservation of Assets
Source Language
english
Family and Children Land and Property Matrimonial Property Division Injunctive Relief Ownership Dispute Preservation of Assets

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D K B

Plaintiff

K S B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to orders restraining alienation of the listed matrimonial assets pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to orders regarding the return or preservation of the title document for LR No. [Particulars Withheld].

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the three landed properties were acquired during the marriage and, despite the defendant's claim of sole acquisition, there was a real risk of their disposal before the suit's determination. This justified granting preservation orders. However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the defendant's interest in the company asset, so no preservation order was made regarding it. On the defendant's application, the court noted the plaintiff's possession of the original title document for one property and her stated intention to transfer it to herself, which was inconsistent with her request for court orders on the same property. The application was unopposed, and the court...

Court Disposition

Both applications allowed in part as specified; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Motion dated 11th December 2015 allowed in terms of prayer 3(a), (b), and (c).
  • Motion dated 10th August 2016 allowed in terms of prayers 3, 5, and 7.