https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8052

EJAA alias EAK v GSK (Matrimonial Cause E001 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 8052 (KLR) (2 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8052 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kakamega Matrimonial Cause E001 of 2021 S Mbungi, J June 2, 2026 Between EJAA alias EAK Applicant and GSK Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant seeks a declaration that land parcels Isukha/Lubao/1XXX, 1XXX, and 1XXX constitute matrimonial property and should be shared equally. 2.The parties were married and later divorced in the United States of America by consent judgment issued in Michigan, Oakland County on 2nd June 2021. 3.The issues for determination concern jurisdiction, existence of matrimonial property, contribution, and distribution.Issues For Determinationa.Whether this court has jurisdiction.b.Whether the suit properties constitute matrimonial property.c.Whether parties are entitled to equal distribution. Analysis And Determination Whether this court has jurisdiction. 4.The issue of jurisdiction is not in dispute in so far as the properties subject of this suit are situated within the republic of Kenya, namely the parcels Isukha/Lubao/1XXX,1XXX and 1XXX. 5.The court further notes that although the parties herein were married and subsequently divorced in the United States of America, the decree of divorce issued by Michigan Court specifically directed that issues relating to property in Kenya be determined by Kenyan courts. 6.Under Section 67 of the Marriage Act, 2014, foreign matrimonial decrees are recognizable where parties are domiciled or the decree is effective in the country of domicile. 7.In Hortensiah Wanjiku Yawe v Public Trustee [1976] eKLR, the Court of Appeal held that a foreign decree and surrounding circumstances may be recognized where justice demands, especially where parties have submitted to jurisdiction. 8.Further in Peter Mburu Echaria V Pricilla Njeri Echaria {2007}, the court of appeal affirmed that disputes relating to beneficial interests in matrimonial property fall for determination by Kenyan Courts in accordance with Kenyan Law. 9.In the circumstances of this case, the court finds and holds that it is property seized of jurisdiction to determine the division of the suit properties. Whether the Properties are Matrimonial Property 10.Under Section 6(1) of the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013, defines matrimonial property to include the matrimonial home and any other immovable and movable property jointly owned and acquired during the subsistence of a marriage. 11.Further section 7 of the same Act provides that the ownership of matrimonial property vests in the spouses according to their contribution towards its acquisitions and where property is registered in the name of one spouse, that fact does not, of itself, exclude the other spouse’s beneficial interest. 12.The Court in Peter Mburu Echaria v Priscilla Njeri Echaria [2007] eKLR held that property acquired during marriage is presumed to be matrimonial property subject to contribution. 13.Similarly, In PNN v ZWN {2017}eKLR,the court of appeal affirmed that property acquired during the subsistence of a marriage is subject to division upon the dissolution of a marriage, taking into account both the financial and non-financial contribution. 14.The question to answer now is whether three properties were acquired during subsistence of the marriage and who acquired them. 15.The Applicant says that she acquired Parcel No. Isukha/Lubao/1XXX alone, but later she registered the same in their joint names for harmony in the family. 16.The Respondent has disputed this, the fact that the title deed is registered in their joint names this is prima facie evidence that they both own the property together though the Applicant contends that the Respondent only contributed Ksh. 80,000/= , this is enough to qualify the property as a matrimonial property. 17.On the Land Parcel Isukha/Lubao/1XXX, the Applicant says that she assisted in acquiring it; she doesn’t say how much she contributed. The Respondent says he is the one who bought the parcel of land alone, in absence of evidence to show that the money used to pay for the property was solely from the Respondent, this court for purposes of being fair I find that since the property was acquired during subsistence of their marriage, it qualifies to be matrimonial property. 18.For the Land Parcel No. Isukha/Lubao/1XXX, the Respondent maintains that he bought the property after the divorce an assertion that the applicant denies . The Applicant attached a copy of an abstract of an agreement between Shivachi of ID No. 22357179 AND Dr. Geoffrey Kimoli Sagala of Passport No. A1151133. I have looked at the extract, the date of the agreement is not reflected for the copy of the agreement is incomplete so if the Applicant was sure she should have attached the entire complete copy of the sale agreement as the person who brought the matter to court she bore the burden See Section 107 of the Evidence Act. 19.I find that she has failed to discharge the burden to hold that Parcel No. Isukha/Lubao/1XXX does not form part of the matrimonial property it was bought by the Respondent after the divorce. Whether parties are entitled to equal distribution. 20.The contribution under the Matrimonial Property Act is not limited to monetary contribution alone. 21.The Court of Appeal in F.A.O v M.A.O [2021] eKLR held that contribution under the Matrimonial Property Act is not limited to monetary input but includes both direct and indirect contribution. 22.Similarly, in M W K v A W M [2013] eKLR, the court held that domestic work and spousal support constitute contribution. 23.There is evidence that both parties used to work and earn, since there is no hard evidence to showing each ones contribution in acquisition of the two properties. It is my finding that both parties directly and indirectly contributed to the acquisition of the property thus the only equitable distribution is to have them share the two properties equally. 24.However, in PNN v ZWN [2017] eKLR, the Court of Appeal clarified that equality is not automatic but fairness is the guiding principle for courts depending on the circumstances of each case. 25.The Supreme Court in JOO v MBO [2023] eKLR reaffirmed that courts must consider both monetary and non-monetary contribution in achieving fairness. 26.In the present case, the court has found that both parties contributed towards acquisition and development of the suit properties. Conclusion 27.The Applicant has proved her case on a balance of probabilities. The court is guided by the Constitution, the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013, and established case law emphasizing fairness and recognition of both monetary and non-monetary contribution. Orders 28.A declaration is hereby issued that land parcels: Isukha/Lubao/1XXX Isukha/Lubao/1XXX constitute matrimonial property and that Isukha/Lubao/1XXX does not. 29.The properties declared to be Matrimonial property shall be shared equally between the Applicant and Respondent. 30.Each party shall bear their own costs DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026.S.N MBUNGIJUDGEIn the presence of:-CA: Zilda/VelmaParties absent.Advocate Onsango on the Platform for the Respondent, present.Ms. Pamela Segela sister to Geoffrey (Respondent) present on behalf of Geoffrey.Advocate Chunge for the Applicant absent.Mr. Onsango: I pray for a copy of the Judgment and seek leave to Appeal incase I get instructions.Court: A copy of the Judgment be availed to the counsels. Leave to appeal granted as prayed.