[2018] KEHC 1341 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 1341 (KLR)

The court found that the United States is not a reciprocating country under the Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, and thus the Minnesota judgment could not be directly enforced in Kenya. However, the applicant was entitled to seek a declaration of rights to the matrimonial properties under Section 17 of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 1341 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: EMM alias EMG; Respondent: GWM alias GWM
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 7 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
application allowed in part
Judges
A Mshila
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property, Foreign Judgment Enforcement, Property Declaration, Transfer of Land Titles
Source Language
en
Family and Children Land and Property Matrimonial Property Foreign Judgment Enforcement Property Declaration Transfer of Land Titles

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EMM alias EMG

Applicant

GWM alias GWM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the judgment issued by the District Court of County of Hennepin State of Minnesota USA is enforceable in Kenya.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a declaration of ownership of the immoveable properties registered in Kenya.
  3. 3 Whether the Deputy Registrar should be authorized to execute transfer documents on behalf of the respondent if she declines.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the United States is not a reciprocating country under the Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, and thus the Minnesota judgment could not be directly enforced in Kenya. However, the applicant was entitled to seek a declaration of rights to the matrimonial properties under Section 17 of the Matrimonial Property Act. The court was satisfied that the properties in question were acquired during the subsistence of the marriage and constituted matrimonial property. In the absence of any response or challenge from the respondent, and in the interest of substantial justice, the court declared the applicant entitled to full ownership of the properties. The court...

Court Disposition

application allowed in part

Orders

  • A declaration is issued that the specified properties are matrimonial property.
  • A declaration is issued that the applicant is entitled to full ownership and benefit of the matrimonial properties.