[2014] KEHC 1541 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant's prayer for reinstatement to the matrimonial property could not be properly granted in a suit for division of matrimonial property, as such relief is more appropriately sought in divorce proceedings where issues of maintenance and occupation are determined. Furthermore, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 1541 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: F M; Respondent: C N
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 3 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Matrimonial Property, Division of Property, Occupation Rights, Maintenance, Divorce Proceedings
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
F M
Applicant
C N
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement to the matrimonial property pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether a prayer for reinstatement can be properly made in a suit for division of matrimonial property.
- 3 Whether the application for reinstatement was made within a reasonable time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant's prayer for reinstatement to the matrimonial property could not be properly granted in a suit for division of matrimonial property, as such relief is more appropriately sought in divorce proceedings where issues of maintenance and occupation are determined. Furthermore, the court noted that the application was brought four years after the alleged separation, with no explanation for the delay, and thus was not made within a reasonable time. The application was therefore found to be without merit and dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 3rd March 2014 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
HCC NO. 3 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF THE MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY ACT, 2013
F M………………..…..……………..APPLICANT
VERSUS
C N………..…………..………….RESPONDENT
RULING
The amended Motion dated 3rd March 2014 seeks the reinstatement of the applicant to the property the subject of the suit as the respondent seeks alternative accommodation.
The applicant’s case is that the subject property was acquired by the parties during coverture. She alleges to have contributed substantially to the acquisition of the asset, and has attached several documents as proof of her contribution. She avers that the marriage broke down irretrievably, the parties separated and she filed for divorce. She complains that the respondent is currently enjoying the property alone to her exclusion.
She swore a further affidavit on 2nd April 2014. The gist of the averments in this further affidavit is that the respondent did not have the financial muscle to acquire such property and the said asset was acquired through her sole efforts. She explains that she was forced out of the house when she found the respondent in bed with their maid.
The record does not reflect a reply to the application by the respondent.
The suit herein was commenced by way of Originating Summons seeking division of matrimonial property. It is not a suit about who is entitled to occupy the house in question but on the determination of shares in the property.
The applicant seeks reinstatement to the suit premises. I doubt whether that is a prayer that can be properly made in a suit for division of matrimonial property. It is a prayer that should be sought in divorce proceedings, for in such proceedings the wife is entitled to maintenance and upkeep pending and even after the determination of the proceedings.
Separation is said to have occurred in 2010. The motion for reinstatement is brought in 2014. Even if such a claim was permitted in a suit for division of matrimonial property an issue would arise as to whether the motion was made within reasonable time. It is not explained why the application was not made earlier, say in 2010 or 2011.
The application dated 3rd March 2014 is wholly without merit and I hereby dismiss it. As the respondent did not reply to it I will make no orders as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 21st DAY OF November 2014.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE
In the presence of Mrs. Rashid advocate for the applicant.
In the presence of Mr. Owang advocate for the respondent.