https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7337

FWM v JMG (Civil Suit E002 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 7337 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7337 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Narok Civil Suit E002 of 2024 CM Kariuki, J May 29, 2026 Between FWM Applicant and JMG Respondent Judgment 1.This is a claim for declaration and division of alleged matrimonial property brought under Sections 7, 12, and 17 of the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013. The Applicant, FWM, seeks recognition of her alleged proprietary interest in several parcels of land registered in the name of the Respondent, JMG, on the basis that the same were acquired and developed during the subsistence of a marriage. 2.The Respondent contests the claim in its entirety, denying the existence of a valid marriage, disputing any contribution by the Applicant, and asserting absolute ownership over the suit property. 3.The dispute therefore raises fundamental questions regarding the existence of a marriage, the nature and extent of contribution, and the applicability of the Matrimonial Property Act in the circumstances of the case. 4.The Pleadings 5.The suit was commenced by way of an Originating Summons dated 30th August 2024, brought under Sections 7, 12, and 17 of the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013, and relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules. The Applicant, FWM, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the Respondent, JMG, in respect of alleged matrimonial property. 6.In the Originating Summons, the Applicant prays for, inter alia, declarations that the properties known as Cismaria/Olopito/XXXX, Plot No. XXXX (Narok Town), and Plot No. XXXX (Narok Town), though registered in the name of the Respondent, are held by him in trust for both parties and constitute matrimonial property acquired and developed through their joint efforts during the subsistence of their marriage. She further seeks injunctive orders restraining the Respondent from evicting her and her children from the matrimonial home situated on Plot No. XXXX (Narok Town), as well as from alienating, disposing of, or otherwise dealing with the said properties to her detriment. Additionally, she seeks a declaration affirming her right to occupy and utilise the said matrimonial properties, together with the costs of the suit. 7.The application is premised on the fact that the parties were married in or about 1991 and, during the subsistence of the marriage, jointly acquired and developed the suit properties, including constructing their matrimonial home on Plot No. XXXX (Narok Town). The Applicant avers that the relationship subsequently deteriorated, forcing the parties to live separately, and that the Respondent has since denied her access to and use of the matrimonial property, allegedly cohabiting therein with another lady. She contends that despite her substantial contribution to the acquisition and development of the properties, she has been excluded and compelled to seek alternative accommodation. She expresses apprehension that the Respondent may alienate or otherwise deal with the properties to her prejudice, hence the need for preservation orders. 8.The Originating Summons is supported by the Applicant’s affidavit sworn on 30th August 2024. In the said affidavit, the Applicant demonstrates that she was married to the Respondent in 1991 under Kikuyu customary law and that the union was blessed with three children. She reiterates that the parties jointly developed the suit properties and moved into their matrimonial home on Plot No. XXXX (Narok Town) in 1997. 9.She further avers that both parties contributed directly and indirectly to the acquisition and development of the properties from proceeds of a timber business, and through her own efforts in running income-generating activities, including cultivation on the land. It is her case that, notwithstanding her contributions, the Respondent has denied her access to and benefit from the properties, including use of the land for subsistence and commercial purposes. 10.The Applicant also depones that the Respondent currently resides on the matrimonial property with another woman, one Caroline Koikai, and that unless the court intervenes, there is a real risk of interference with the matrimonial property to her detriment. She maintains that she has established a proper basis for the grant of the orders sought and urges the court to allow the application to safeguard her rights and preserve the matrimonial property pending determination of the cause. 11. Evidence 12. Applicants’ Evidence 13.The Applicant, FWM (FWM), testified that she resides in Nakuru and was in a relationship with the Respondent from about 1991 to 2010. During that period, they lived together and were blessed with three children, now all adults. It was her evidence that, although none of the suit properties was registered in their joint names, they were acquired and developed during the subsistence of their relationship through joint efforts, particularly from the proceeds of a timber business allegedly run by the Respondent. She stated that they lived on Plot No. XXXX (Narok Town), which she described as their matrimonial home, and that they also developed Plot No. XXXX (Narok Town) as business premises, while Cismaria/Olopito/XXXX comprised agricultural land. 14.In examination-in-chief, the Applicant conceded that she had no documentary evidence to prove her financial contribution towards the acquisition or development of the properties, nor any records relating to the alleged business. Highlighting the absence of supporting proof, she further admitted that all the properties were registered solely in the Respondent’s name. She testified that she was chased away from the matrimonial home around 2010 following a domestic dispute and has since been denied access to the properties. She also stated that the Respondent currently resides on Plot No. XXXX with another woman. She maintained that she sought reinstatement to the matrimonial home and an equal share of the properties, or in the alternative, a share of the proceeds from the income-generating properties. 15.On cross-examination, the Applicant reiterated that she considered herself a customary wife of the Respondent, stating that some form of dowry was paid. However, she had no documentary proof, witnesses, or photographs to support the alleged customary marriage. She confirmed that the parties separated in or about 2010 following a domestic dispute and had not cohabited since. She further acknowledged that she had been charged and convicted in relation to an assault incident involving the Respondent. She admitted that attempts at reconciliation and mediation through family members were unsuccessful. While maintaining that the properties were acquired during cohabitation, she conceded that she had no records of financial contribution and that the Respondent had, at some point, offered her one acre of land, which she declined. 16.In re-examination, the Applicant emphasised her non-financial contributions, such as domestic support and joint effort, to foster understanding of her role in the property development and evoke empathy from the court. 17.Respondent’s Evidence 18.DW1 – Stephen Muchiri Kithikai, a brother of the Respondent, testified that the Applicant and the Respondent cohabited for over 15 years and had three children together. He confirmed that the parties lived together but stated that, to his knowledge, no formal customary marriage was conducted in accordance with Kikuyu customs. He explained the customary marriage process and testified that he was not aware of any such process having been undertaken between the parties. 19.In examination-in-chief, DW1 stated that the Respondent owned the suit properties, some of which were acquired even before the relationship with the Applicant. He testified that Plot No. XXXX had originally belonged to him and was later transferred to the Respondent through an exchange arrangement. He denied any knowledge of the Applicant's contribution to the acquisition of the properties. 20.On cross-examination, DW1 conceded that he did not have full knowledge of all interactions between the parties, including whether dowry negotiations or payments had taken place. He admitted that the Applicant lived with the Respondent for an extended period and that they had children together. He also acknowledged that the Respondent operated a timber business. 21.In re-examination, DW1 reiterated that he had no evidence of any financial contribution by the Applicant towards the acquisition of the properties and maintained that the properties belonged solely to the Respondent. 22.The Respondent's evidence questioned the validity of the Marriage, which should prompt the court to fairly assess the importance of the marriage’s existence in property rights determination. 23.In examination-in-chief, the Respondent stated that all the suit properties were acquired solely by him without any contribution from the Applicant. He testified that Plot No. XXXX (Narok Town) was acquired in 1987, before the relationship, and was developed using proceeds from his timber business. He further explained that Cismaria/Olopito/XXXX was acquired in 2008 through a bank loan and remains encumbered, while Plot No. XXXX (Narok Town) was allocated to him and is currently the subject of a dispute with the county government. The documentary evidence he produced, including title documents, official searches, allotment letters, and other exhibits, underscores his sole ownership and supports his claim of exclusive acquisition. 24.The Respondent further testified that the parties separated following an incident in 2010 in which the Applicant assaulted him, leading to her criminal conviction. He stated that since then, they have not cohabited. He denied that the Applicant contributed to the acquisition or development of the properties and maintained that she was neither a business partner nor involved in the financial aspects of his ventures. He added that he had offered the Applicant one acre of land for settlement, which she declined. 25.On cross-examination, the Respondent admitted that the Applicant lived with him for many years and bore him children, but maintained that there was no formal marriage. He reiterated that the Applicant made no financial contribution to the properties and that his intention in offering land was to provide for the children rather than to acknowledge any proprietary interest by the Applicant. 26.In re-examination, the Respondent emphasised that the absence of formal marriage and lack of contribution by the Applicant disentitled her from any claim over the properties and urged the court to dismiss the suit. 27. Parties Submissions 28. Applicants’ submissions 29.The Applicant, FWM, filed written submissions in which she reiterated that the present suit is anchored on Sections 6, 7, 12, 14, and 17 of the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013, and seeks the division of matrimonial property and protection of her rights in the matrimonial home. 30.The Applicant argued that the properties acquired during the marriage should be considered matrimonial property, emphasizing Fairness in property division. 31.It was argued that the Applicant made both financial and non-financial contributions towards the acquisition, development, and preservation of the said properties. Particular emphasis was placed on non-monetary contributions, including childcare, homemaking, and support of the Respondent’s business, which enabled him to generate income. 32.In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on FS v EZ [2016] eKLR, where the court recognised non-financial contribution as a valid basis for entitlement to matrimonial property. Further reliance was placed on TNM v BMK [2020] eKLR, where the court held that contribution includes both direct and indirect efforts, whether financial or otherwise. 33.The applicant further invoked Section 14 of the Matrimonial Property Act, submitting that the fact that the properties are registered in the Respondent’s name does not defeat the Applicant’s interest, as the law creates a rebuttable presumption that such property is held in trust for both spouses. In this regard, reliance was placed on TNM v FMC [2019] eKLR, where the court affirmed that property acquired during marriage for family use constitutes matrimonial property regardless of registration. 34.It was also submitted that the Respondent’s own witness admitted that the Applicant was to be allocated a portion of land, which amounted to an acknowledgement of her beneficial interest. 35.On whether alleged marital disputes disentitle the Applicant, the Applicant submitted that the Respondent’s reliance on alleged marital disputes, including claims of assault and separation, is legally irrelevant to the determination of rights in matrimonial property. 36.The applicant argued that Section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act bases division strictly on contribution and does not incorporate fault or conduct as a determinant. Accordingly, disputes between spouses cannot extinguish proprietary rights accrued through contribution. 37.In support of this position, reliance was placed on IC v SS [2024] KEHC 3316 (KLR), where the court held that marital misconduct or disputes cannot be used to deny a spouse a share in matrimonial property. The Applicant also cited TNM v BMK [2020] eKLR for the principle that division must be grounded on contribution rather than fault. 38.It was further submitted that permitting such arguments would undermine the protective purpose of the Matrimonial Property Act, particularly Section 12, which safeguards the matrimonial home from eviction or alienation without consent or a court order. 39.On whether the Applicant is entitled to protection and declaratory relief, the Applicant submitted that she is entitled to protection of her rights in the matrimonial home and other properties. The applicant argued that Section 12 of the Matrimonial Property Act prohibits eviction or alienation of matrimonial property without the consent of both spouses. Therefore, the Respondent’s actions in excluding the Applicant were unlawful. 40.Reliance was placed on Section 17 of the Act, which empowers the court to determine and declare rights in matrimonial property. The Applicant urged the court to declare her to be the beneficial owner of all the suit properties. 41.Further reliance was placed on Echaria v Echaria [2007] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal emphasised that matrimonial property rights are based on contribution and that courts have a duty to safeguard the equitable interests of spouses. 42.The applicant reiterated that Section 14 of the Act creates a presumption of trust in favour of a spouse where property is registered in the name of the other, and that the Respondent had not rebutted this presumption. 43.In conclusion, the Applicant submitted that she had demonstrated that the suit properties were acquired during the subsistence of the marriage and that she made substantial contributions towards their acquisition and development. 44.She therefore urged the court to: Declare the suit properties as matrimonial property within the meaning of Section 6 of the Matrimonial Property Act; Order division of the properties according to contribution under Section 7; Declare her beneficial interest in the properties registered in the Respondent’s name pursuant to Section 14; and Grant injunctive orders restraining the Respondent from alienating the properties or evicting her from the matrimonial home in line with Section 12 of the Act. 45.The Applicant accordingly prayed that the court allow the Originating Summons with costs. 46. Respondent’s submissions 47.The Respondent, JMG, filed written submissions opposing the Originating Summons dated 30th August 2024. He contended that the Applicant’s claim is legally untenable and urged the court to dismiss it in its entirety. 48.On whether there existed a valid marriage, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant had failed to establish the existence of a valid marriage capable of grounding a claim under the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013. He argued that the Applicant merely alleged a customary marriage under Kikuyu law but failed to prove essential elements, such as the payment of dowry (ruracio), the involvement of elders, or compliance with customary rites. 49.It was contended that what existed between the parties was mere cohabitation between 1991 and 2010, which, in law, does not automatically confer matrimonial property rights. 50.In support of this argument, reliance was placed on Hortensia Wanjiku Yawe v Public Trustee [1976] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal held that while long cohabitation may give rise to a presumption of marriage, such presumption must be supported by evidence of compliance with customary requirements. 51.Further reliance was placed on POM v MNM [2019] eKLR (Supreme Court), where it was held that rights under the Matrimonial Property Act are predicated upon the existence of a valid marriage. The Respondent therefore submitted that in the absence of proof of marriage, the Applicant’s claim collapses at the threshold. 52.On whether the Applicant contributed to the acquisition or development of the properties, the Respondent submitted that all the suit properties were acquired solely by him at various times and, in some instances, before the alleged relationship. He maintained that: Plot No. XXXX (Narok Town) was acquired in 1987 before he met the Applicant; Plot No. XXXX (Narok Town) was acquired in 2005; and Cismara/Olopito/XXXX was acquired in 2008. 53.He argued that the Applicant failed to produce any documentary evidence, such as receipts, bank statements, or witness testimony, to prove any financial or non-financial contribution. 54.The Respondent relied on Echaria v Echaria [2007] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal held that a beneficial interest in matrimonial property must be based on proved contribution and not mere presence in a relationship. 55.He further cited PNN v ZWN [2017] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal emphasised that there is no presumption of equal ownership in matrimonial property and that division must be based on actual contribution. 56.It was therefore submitted that even if the court were to assume the existence of a marriage (which was denied), the Applicant had failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act. 57.On whether the Applicant can invoke the Matrimonial Property Act, the Respondent submitted that the Matrimonial Property Act can only be invoked where there is proof of a valid marriage and, further, upon dissolution of that marriage. 58.He argued that the Applicant had neither proved the existence of a marriage nor demonstrated its dissolution. He emphasised that the parties separated in 2010 following a criminal incident in which the Applicant was convicted, and no divorce proceedings were ever instituted. 59.Reliance was placed on AKK v PKW [2020] eKLR, where the court held that division of matrimonial property is only available upon dissolution of marriage. The Respondent also cited POM v MNM [2019] eKLR, in which the Supreme Court reiterated that matrimonial property rights flow from marriage and division follows divorce. 60.On this basis, it was submitted that the Applicant’s invocation of the Act was premature and legally unsustainable. 61.On whether the Respondent should be restrained from dealing with the properties, the Respondent submitted that, as the registered proprietor of the suit properties, he is entitled to absolute ownership and quiet enjoyment under Section 24 of the Land Registration Act. He argued that the Applicant had not established any legal or equitable interest capable of overriding his title. 62.In support of this position, reliance was placed on Mwangi v Mwangi [1986] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal held that unsubstantiated claims cannot defeat the rights of a registered proprietor. 63.Further reliance was placed on Mbui Mukangu v Gerald Mutwiri Mbui [2004] eKLR, where the court held that equitable interests must be proved by cogent evidence before they can override registered title. 64.The Respondent therefore argued that granting injunctive orders would unjustly interfere with his proprietary rights and amount to dispossessing him of lawfully acquired property. 65.In conclusion, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant had failed to: Prove the existence of a valid marriage; Demonstrate any contribution to the acquisition or development of the suit properties; and establish any legal basis for invoking the Matrimonial Property Act or restraining the Respondent. 66.He urged the court to find that the claim was speculative and unsupported by evidence, and accordingly prayed that: The Originating Summons be dismissed in its entirety; The suit properties be declared to belong solely to him as the registered proprietor; His right to quiet possession and enjoyment be affirmed; and Costs be awarded to him. 67. Issues for Determination 68.Having considered the pleadings, evidence, and submissions by both parties, the following issues arise for determination:I.Whether there existed a valid marriage between the Applicant and the Respondent capable of grounding a claim under the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013.II.Whether the Applicant proved contribution, whether direct or indirect, towards the acquisition, development, or improvement of the suit properties.III.Whether the suit properties constitute matrimonial property within the meaning of Section 6 of the Matrimonial Property Act.IV.Whether the Applicant is entitled to the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought. 69.Analysis And Determination 70.The foundation of claims under the Matrimonial Property Act must be read together with the Constitution, particularly Article 45 of the Constitution of Kenya, which recognises the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society and guarantees equal rights at the time of marriage, during marriage, and at dissolution. Kenyan jurisprudence has evolved to recognise that strict proof of formalities should not defeat substantive justice, particularly where long cohabitation and family life are evident. 71.The Applicant testified that she was married to the Respondent under Kikuyu customary law in 1991 and that they cohabited continuously until 2010, during which period they were blessed with children. While she did not produce documentary proof of customary rites, it is trite that customary marriages are largely oral and community-based, and the absence of documentation is not fatal. 72.The Respondent admitted prolonged cohabitation with the Applicant spanning nearly two decades. This fact alone is significant and cannot be dismissed lightly. 73.In Hortensia Wanjiku Yawe v Public Trustee [1976] eKLR, the Court of Appeal firmly established that long cohabitation as husband and wife gives rise to a presumption of marriage, particularly where the parties hold themselves out as such. 74.Further, the Supreme Court in POM v MNM [2019] eKLR affirmed that courts must interpret family law in a manner that protects vulnerable parties and promotes substantive justice. 75.In the present case, the duration of cohabitation, the existence of children, and the social context within which the parties lived strongly support the presumption of marriage. The Respondent’s denial, unsupported by evidence displacing this long-standing union, is insufficient to rebut the presumption. 76.Accordingly, this Court finds, on a balance of probability, that a presumed marriage existed between the Applicant and the Respondent, capable of grounding a claim under the Matrimonial Property Act. 77. B. Whether the Applicant proved the contribution. 78.Section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act provides that ownership of matrimonial property vests in spouses according to their respective contributions, expressly recognising both monetary and non-monetary contributions. 79.Section 2 further defines non-monetary contribution to include domestic work, childcare, companionship, management of family business, and farm work. 80.The Applicant testified that she participated in the Respondent’s timber business, engaged in farming activities, and undertook domestic responsibilities, including raising children and maintaining the household. 81.It is now well settled that domestic labour and child-rearing are invaluable contributions, though rarely documented. Courts must therefore adopt a realistic and gender-sensitive approach when assessing such a contribution. 82.In FS v EZ [2016] eKLR and TNM v BMK [2020] eKLR, the courts recognised that non-financial contribution is equal in importance to financial contribution and need not be strictly quantified. 83.Moreover, in Echaria v Echaria [2007] eKLR, while the court emphasised proof of contribution, subsequent jurisprudence has moved toward a more equitable interpretation that avoids disadvantaging spouses—often women—whose contributions are primarily domestic. 84.The absence of documentary evidence in this context is not surprising and should not be used to negate the Applicant’s lived reality. Her consistent testimony, coupled with the undisputed long cohabitation and family life, sufficiently establishes indirect contribution. 85.Consequently, this Court finds that the Applicant substantially contributed, both directly and indirectly, to the acquisition, development, and sustenance of the family’s wealth. 86. C. Whether the suit properties constitute matrimonial property. 87.Section 6 of the Matrimonial Property Act defines matrimonial property to include the matrimonial home and property acquired during the subsistence of a marriage. Section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act provides that ownership vests according to contribution. 88.However, that provision must be read in light of Article 45(3) of the Constitution of Kenya; 89.Article 27 of the Constitution of Kenya. The Supreme Court in POM v MNM clarified that equality in marriage does not mean automatic equal sharing, nor does it permit the systemic undervaluation of one spouse’s contribution. 90.Post-2020 Court of Appeal jurisprudence has consistently held: No automatic 50:50 division; Contribution must be proved; 91.Non-monetary contribution is equal in dignity and weight. Importantly, recent decisions show a discernible shift toward robust recognition of caregiving and domestic labour, particularly where it spans the entire duration of the relationship. 92.Having found that a presumed marriage existed, the Court is entitled to apply the statutory framework. The evidence shows that the parties lived together for nearly two decades, during which time the Respondent acquired and developed various properties. Such property acquired during coverture is subject to a rebuttable presumption of trust under Section 14 of the Act. 93.Even where certain properties may have been initially acquired before cohabitation, the Applicant’s contribution through maintenance, improvement, and family support can confer a beneficial interest. 94.The Respondent did not discharge the burden of rebutting the presumption that these properties were acquired and developed through joint effort. 95.Accordingly, this Court finds that the suit properties constitute matrimonial property, or at the very least, are subject to a beneficial interest in favour of the Applicant. 96. D. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought. 97.The Applicant seeks declarations of trust, division of property, and injunctive relief. 98.While the Respondent is the registered proprietor, Section 24 of the Land Registration Act does not confer absolute ownership free from equitable interests. Courts have consistently held that a registered title is subject to overriding interests, including spousal rights. 99.In Mbui Mukangu v Gerald Mutwiri Mbui [2004] eKLR, the Court affirmed that equitable interests may override legal title where justified. 100.Having established both marriage (through presumption) and contribution, the Applicant has demonstrated a beneficial interest in the suit properties. 101.Further, applying the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358, the Applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success, and the risk of irreparable harm if the properties are alienated.i.Consequently, the Applicant is entitled to:ii.A declaration that the suit’s properties are matrimonial property.iii.A declaration that the Respondent holds the same trust for himself and the Applicant.iv.An order for equitable distribution; andv.Injunctive relief restraining disposal pending determination and/or distribution. 102. E. Conclusioni.In the result, the Court finds that:presumed marriage existed between the Applicant and the Respondent;proved a substantial non-monetary and indirect contribution;matrimonial property or are subject to beneficial interest; andentitled to the sought of reliefs.iv.The Applicant isiii.The suit properties constituteii.The Applicanti.A 103.The Originating Summons dated 30th August 2024 is hereby allowed, with appropriate orders for equitable distribution of the matrimonial property and costs to the Applicant. 104.In determining the distribution of matrimonial property, courts must move beyond formal equality and interrogate the qualitative impact of non-monetary contributions. Where such a contribution is continuous, indispensable, and effectively enables the acquisition of property, equity may justify a proportion exceeding parity in favour of the contributing spouse. 105.The critical issue is the appropriate ratio.a.While courts have rejected automatic equality, they have equally rejected mechanical minimalism that undervalues domestic labour. The Court identifies the following distinguishing factors:b.The length of the union (approximately 20 years);c.The Applicant’s continuous caregiving role;d.The Respondent’s exclusive legal ownership despite joint effort;e.The structural reality that the Applicant’s labour freed the Respondent to accumulate capital. 106.In such circumstances, a strict 50:50 split may fail to capture the qualitative weight of the Applicant’s contribution fully. This Court is persuaded that equity is not always symmetrical. 107.Where one spouse bears a disproportionate share of time-intensive, opportunity-limiting responsibilities (such as child-rearing and domestic labour), a modest upward adjustment is justified. 108.Accordingly, the Court makes the orders and finds that a 70:30 apportionment in favour of the Applicant, i.e., the Applicant gets 30% and the respondent gets 70%, best reflects: Her sustained, full-spectrum contribution; 109.Final Orders;a.Declaration is hereby issued that the following properties constitute matrimonial property;- Plot no XXXX, (Narok Town)- Cis-mara /Olopito/3289- Plot no XXXX (Narok Town)b.A declaration is hereby issued that the Plaintiff holds a thirty per cent (30%) beneficial interest in the aforesaid matrimonial properties.c.The parties shall, within ninety (90) days, agree on the mode of valuation and distribution of the properties, stating which of the properties shall be valued by a mutually agreed valuer and appropriate distribution thereof to ensue or compensation undertaken in accordance with the Plaintiff’s thirty per cent (30%) share and the defendant to retain (70 %).d.In respect of any property already sold, transferred, or disposed of by the Defendant, the Plaintiff shall be compensated equivalent to forty percent (30%) of the net value thereof as at the date of disposal.e.A permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the Defendant from alienating, transferring, charging, wasting, or otherwise interfering with the Plaintiff’s beneficial interest in any remaining matrimonial property pending full settlement.f.Each party to bear its own costs.1.On costs, the general principle is that costs follow the event pursuant to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, courts retain discretion to depart from the principle depending on the circumstances of the case.2.In Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 Others v Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 Others [2014] eKLR, the Supreme Court held that the award of costs is discretionary and should be guided by the interests of justice.3.Considering that this dispute arises from a former matrimonial relationship and involves parties who jointly raised a family for many years, I am persuaded that each party should bear its own costs.4.Accordingly, each party shall bear their own costs. 110.It is so ordered.The parties bear their own costs, as this is a family matter. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAROK THROUGH TEAMS APPLICATION, THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.…………………………………CHARLES KARIUKIJUDGE