https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10315

HGW v RWG (Civil Appeal 150 of 2019) [2026] KEHC 10315 (KLR) (Family) (10 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10315 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Civil Appeal 150 of 2019 H Namisi, J July 10, 2026 Between HGW Appellant and RWG Respondent (Being an Appeal from the Judgement and orders given on 8 November 2019 by. Hon. A.M Obura (Senior Principal Magistrate) in Nairobi Divorce Cause No. 586 of 2016) Judgment 1.In this appeal, the Appellant herein, who was the Respondent in the original divorce cause, seeks the intervention of this Court to set aside a specific and highly contested portion of the trial court’s judgment. The gravamen of the Appellant's grievance is the trial Magistrate's outright refusal to grant an order for spousal maintenance in the sum of Kshs. 500,000/= per month, a prayer the Appellant asserts was properly pleaded and overwhelmingly supported by the evidentiary record. 2.The Respondent herein is the Petitioner who sought the dissolution of the marriage in the lower court. 3.The factual matrix underpinning this dispute is rooted in a long-standing union. The parties solemnized their marriage on 22 September 1979 at St. Paul’s Church in Nairobi, under the provisions of the repealed African Christian Marriage and Divorce Act. The union, which spanned 4 decades, was blessed with 4 children, all of whom have since attained the age of majority and independence. 4.However, the passage of time brought with it the gradual, irremediable deterioration of the matrimonial bond. This culminated in the Respondent filing a Petition for the dissolution of the marriage on 10 August 2016, citing grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Respondent alleged, inter alia, that the Appellant had constructively deserted the matrimonial home in 2001, relocating abroad for further studies, and that the parties had not resumed cohabitation since. 5.In response, the Appellant initially filed an Answer to the Petition and a Cross-Petition on 12 October 2016, vigorously denying the allegations of desertion and cruelty, and instead levelling counter-accusations of adultery, emotional cruelty, and financial disenfranchisement against the Respondent. The Appellant subsequently sought and obtained leave of the trial court to amend her pleadings. This resulted in the filing of an Amended Answer to Petition and Cross-Petition, dated 21 December 2018 and formally filed in court on 14 January 2019. In this superseding pleading, the Appellant introduced a specific, quantified prayer for monthly spousal maintenance in the sum of Kshs. 500,000/=, alongside her prayers for the dissolution of the marriage based on her Cross-Petition. 6.Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court delivered its judgment, finding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and consequently issuing a Decree Nisi, followed by a Decree Absolute. However, in determining the ancillary reliefs, the trial Magistrate held that the Appellant had neither pleaded a claim for maintenance nor tendered sufficient evidence to substantiate such a claim. Consequently, the trial court declined to make any award for spousal maintenance, essentially dismissing that limb of the Appellant's case. Dissatisfied with this specific finding and the resultant denial of financial provision, the Appellant lodged the present appeal on the following grounds:a.That the trial Magistrate erred in law in failing to make an award on the Appellant’s claim for maintenance despite the issue having been expressly raised before the court.b.That the trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to consider the evidence that was adduced by the Appellant in support of the claim for maintenance.c.That the trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact in relying on the appellant’s original Answer to Petition and Cross-Petition dated 12 October 2016, operating in total ignorance of the Appellant’s Amended Answer to Petition and Cross-Petition filed in 2018.d.That the trial Magistrate erred in law and in fact, failing to conduct the proceedings in a judicious manner as envisaged by Article 50 of the Constitution, by holding that the Appellant neither pleaded the claim for maintenance nor tendered evidence in support of the claim. 7.The Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed with costs, and that the portion of the trial court's judgment regarding maintenance be vacated and substituted with an order granting monthly maintenance of Kshs. 500,000/=. She prays that this order take effect retrospectively from the date of filing the divorce cause and subsist until the final determination of a separate, pending matrimonial property suit, identified as H.C.C.C No. 21 of 2016. 8.In support of these grounds, the Appellant submitted that the trial court's failure to recognize the amended pleadings constituted a grave miscarriage of justice and an abdication of judicial duty. Substantively, the Appellant argued that her advanced age (over 70 years), her deteriorating health and her financial distress warranted an award of maintenance. She contended that during the 40-year marriage, the parties amassed significant wealth, including high-value real estate (such as the Kanjata Road property in Lavington and Lamuria Gardens) and highly lucrative corporate entities, which generate millions of shillings in monthly turnover. The Appellant argued that because the Respondent unilaterally controls these jointly acquired assets and businesses, she has been left destitute and entirely dependent on the court's intervention to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage. Furthermore, she anchored her claim on Section 77 of the Marriage Act and the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 45(3) of The Constitution. 9.Conversely, the Respondent robustly opposed the appeal. The Respondent submitted that the trial court was entirely justified in denying the maintenance claim, arguing that the Appellant is a highly educated, self-sufficient professional who does not require financial support. The Respondent highlighted that the Appellant holds a Bachelor of Commerce and Accounting degree from the University of Nairobi, and later obtained a Master of Science degree in Maritime Economics and Logistics from Erasmus University, Rotterdam, in 2002. Furthermore, the Respondent pointed out that the Appellant is the sole proprietor of an active enterprise, Lagoon Logistics, which has been operational for over a decade. 10.The Respondent also raised procedural and jurisdictional objections, arguing that the Appellant improperly sought maintenance to be paid out of the revenues of limited liability companies (Ishano Distributors Limited and Jukumu Enterprises Limited) which are distinct legal entities and were not parties to the divorce proceedings. Finally, relying heavily on the recent High Court decision in CKN v DMO (Civil Appeal 21B of 2022) KEHC 26379 (KLR), the Respondent argued that the constitutional metamorphosis of Kenyan family law has rendered the concept of alimony obsolete and repugnant to the principle of equality, asserting that neither party bears the burden of maintaining the other post-dissolution. Analysis & Determination 11.Before embarking on the substantive analysis of the competing legal and factual claims, it is incumbent upon this Court to delineate the jurisprudential parameters within which it operates as a first appellate court. The duty of a first appellate court is well-entrenched; it is not merely a superficial review of the lower court's decision, but a comprehensive re-evaluation of the entire record. 12.This Court is obligated to reconsider the evidence adduced before the trial court, evaluate it comprehensively, and draw its own independent conclusions. This foundational principle was established in the locus classicus of Selle and Another v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd and Others EA 123, where the predecessor to the current Court of Appeal held that an appeal to the court from a trial by the High Court (or a subordinate court) is by way of retrial. The appellate court is not necessarily bound to follow the trial judge's findings of fact if it appears that the judge failed to take account of particular circumstances, ignored relevant evidence, or drew inferences that are inconsistent with the evidence as a whole. 13.Furthermore, in Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiha Maina eKLR, the Court of Appeal reiterated that it is the sacred duty of the appellate court to analyse and re-assess the evidence on record and reach its own conclusions, while maintaining a healthy respect for the fact that the trial court had the distinct advantage of observing the demeanour and truthfulness of the witnesses firsthand. 14.Concurrently, the appellate court must exercise profound caution when invited to interfere with the discretionary powers of a trial court. As eloquently articulated by the Court of Appeal in Mbogo and Another v Shah EA 93, an appellate court will not—and indeed, should not—interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion by a subordinate court unless it is satisfied that the decision is clearly wrong because the court misdirected itself on the law, acted on matters it should not have acted upon, or failed to consider matters it was legally obligated to consider. 15.Guided by these foundational principles, this Court proceeds to analyse the issues framed for determination. The dispute encapsulates three distinct legal spheres: the procedural propriety regarding the amendment of pleadings, the constitutional and statutory framework governing spousal maintenance in modern Kenya, and the rigorous evidentiary burden required to prove financial capacity and need. The Procedural Quagmire and the Legal Effect of Amended Pleadings 16.The third ground of appeal strikes directly at the procedural foundation of the trial court's judgment. The Appellant contends, with considerable force, that the trial Magistrate erred fundamentally in law by relying on the original Answer to Petition and Cross-Petition dated 12 October 2016, thereby operating in total ignorance of the Amended Answer to Petition and Cross-Petition filed on the 14 January 2019. 17.A meticulous examination of the trial court record confirms this procedural anomaly. The original 2016 pleading filed by the Appellant was largely defensive, traversing the Petitioner's allegations and raising counter-claims of adultery and cruelty. Crucially, it did not contain a specific, quantified prayer for spousal maintenance. Had this document remained the operative pleading, the trial Magistrate's conclusion that maintenance was not pleaded would have been unassailable. 18.However, the trajectory of the litigation changed. The Appellant subsequently sought to amend her pleadings, a right routinely granted to facilitate the determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties. In paragraph 17 of the Amended Answer to Petition and Cross-Petition, filed in 2019, it is expressly and unambiguously stated: "The Respondent prays for a monthly maintenance of at least a sum of Kshs. 500,000.00". Furthermore, the final prayers of the amended document incorporate a specific request for the Petitioner to be compelled to provide monthly maintenance in the stated sum. 19.The law regarding the status and legal effect of amended pleadings is unambiguous and admits no equivocation. Once a party amends a pleading with the leave of the court or under the permissible rules of civil procedure, the amended pleading entirely supersedes and eclipses the original pleading. The original document ceases to have any operative legal effect in defining the issues in controversy, the admissions made, or the prayers sought. 20.This doctrine was definitively settled by the Court of Appeal in the seminal case of Central Kenya Ltd v Trust Bank Ltd & 5 Others eKLR, where it was established that amended pleadings replace original pleadings and form the sole, exclusive basis upon which a court must adjudicate the dispute. Furthermore, an amended pleading relates back in point of time to the date of the filing of the original pleading, ensuring a seamless continuation of the litigation framework. As noted in subsequent jurisprudence applying the Central Kenya standard, the court looks only to the pleadings as amended in deciding the issues, and whatever was contained in the original pleading that is omitted or altered in the amendment can no longer be relied upon to the detriment of the amending party. 21.By holding that the Appellant had not pleaded a claim for maintenance, the learned trial Magistrate clearly misdirected herself. The trial court inadvertently overlooked the operative document squarely on the record—the Amended Answer to Petition and Cross-Petition—which explicitly contained the prayer for maintenance. To the extent that the trial court based its refusal to award maintenance on the erroneous premise that the claim was not pleaded, the judgment is procedurally flawed and warrants appellate interference. 22.However, overcoming a procedural hurdle does not automatically guarantee substantive success. This Court must now pivot from the realm of procedure to the realm of substantive law and evidence: having properly pleaded the claim, was the Appellant substantively and evidentially entitled to the award of Kshs. 500,000/= per month? Spousal Maintenance 23.To determine whether the Appellant is entitled to spousal maintenance, it is imperative to deeply examine the evolving, and sometimes fiercely debated, jurisprudence surrounding matrimonial obligations in Kenya. The legal landscape governing marriage, divorce, and post-divorce financial maintenance underwent a seismic, paradigm-shifting metamorphosis with the promulgation of The Constitution in 2010 and the subsequent enactment of the Marriage Act. 24.Historically, under the repealed Matrimonial Causes Act, the concept of alimony was heavily steeped in patriarchal presumptions. The law presumed that a husband bore an absolute, nearly unilateral duty to maintain his wife, reflecting a societal structure where women were structurally excluded from the formal economy and rendered inherently dependent on male provision. 25.This archaic framework was dismantled by Article 45(3) of The Constitution which boldly proclaims that parties to a marriage are entitled to equal rights at the time of the marriage, during the marriage, and at the dissolution of the marriage. This constitutional imperative of equality triggered a necessary re-evaluation of post-divorce financial obligations. 26.The Respondent heavily relies on the recent decision in CKN v DMO (Civil Appeal 21B of 2022) KEHC 26379 (KLR) to argue that maintenance should be denied outright. In that case, the Court adopted a strictly formalistic interpretation of Article 45(3), declaring that the very concept of alimony is no longer part of Kenyan law. The learned Judge in that matter reasoned:“...the concept of alimony is no longer part of our law. With constitutional changes, the existence of alimony is repugnant to good order and equality of people in marriage before, during and after the marriage. None of the parties has a burden of maintaining the other... The reality of the concept of alimony is that it was based on the concept that the men and women were not equal... The concept of alimony is anathema to equality of men and women. It portrays women wrongfully as weak". 27.The Respondent posits that under the CKN v DMO precedent, the Appellant is entirely precluded from claiming any maintenance, as doing so would violate the constitutional equality mandated by Article 45(3). 28.However, an exhaustive analysis of the broader jurisprudence reveals that the sweeping pronouncements in CKN v DMO—while correctly identifying the patriarchal roots of traditional "alimony"—must be understood within a nuanced context and cannot be utilized to invalidate the express statutory provisions of the Marriage Act. While the archaic concept of automatic, gender-based "alimony" is indeed obsolete, the modern statutory remedy of "spousal maintenance" remains a vital, active, and constitutionally compliant component of Kenyan family law. 29.Section 77(1) of the Marriage Act expressly grants the court the jurisdiction and discretion to order a person to pay maintenance to a spouse or a former spouse, particularly when granting or after granting a decree of separation or divorce. This statutory provision does not violate Article 45(3); rather, it operationalizes the constitutional ideal of substantive equality. True equality under The Constitution does not mandate identical, rigid treatment in all circumstances, particularly when the socio-economic realities of spouses at the dissolution of a marriage are often vastly disparate. A strict, formalistic application of equality that ignores the economic disadvantages suffered by one spouse—often due to child-rearing or career sacrifices made for the benefit of the family unit—perpetuates inequality rather than curing it. 30.This nuanced, substantive understanding of equality was eloquently articulated by G.B.M. Kariuki, J. (as he then was) in the landmark case of W.M.M. v B.M.L. (Divorce Cause 179 of 2008) eKLR, which remains highly persuasive and binding in principle. The Court observed:“In considering a claim for maintenance, regard must be had to the provisions of Article 45(3) of the Constitution of Kenya which recognizes that 'parties to a marriage are entitled to equal rights'... No spouse who is capable of earning should be allowed to shirk his or her responsibility to support himself or herself or turn the other spouse into a beast of burden but where a spouse deserves to be paid maintenance in the event of divorce or separation the law must be enforced to ensure that a deserving spouse enjoys spousal support so as to maintain the standard of life he or she was used to before separation or divorce". 31.Furthermore, the Court of Appeal definitively clarified the intersection of constitutional equality and spousal maintenance in M E K v G L M [2018] eKLR. The Court warned against interpreting equality as a mechanism to abandon vulnerable spouses, holding that:“Equality in marriage is not a principle to be applied blindly nor is it intended to encourage dependency by one spouse. It is a situation where each party makes a contribution. In other words, it is not shifting the burden, but the sharing of responsibilities and benefits taking into account the gender limitations". 32.Similarly, in KAS v MMK (Divorce Cause No. 10 of 2016) eKLR, the Court emphasized that maintenance is not a right granted as a matter of course to be used as a field where spouses cash in on their partners. Instead, it must be established that the party claiming maintenance is genuinely incapacitated or disadvantaged in making their own earnings and, therefore, truly requires the financial support of the former partner to live in dignity. 33.Therefore, the Respondent's assertion that spousal maintenance is unconstitutional or entirely abolished by CKN v DMO is a misapprehension of the law. Section 77 of the Marriage Act remains valid, operative law. Maintenance is gender-neutral; either a husband or a wife may claim it. It is not an automatic entitlement, nor is it a mechanism for unjust enrichment. It is a strictly needs-based, discretionary, equitable remedy designed to prevent undue economic hardship and ensure that a spouse who genuinely lacks the capacity to maintain themselves—often due to the structural dynamics of the marriage itself—is not left destitute upon its dissolution. The Statutory Parameters and the Evidentiary Burden of Proof 34.Having established that the trial court possessed the jurisdiction to award maintenance, and that the Appellant had properly pleaded the claim, the determinative issue becomes whether the Appellant discharged her strict evidentiary burden to prove her entitlement to the colossal sum of Kshs. 500,000/= per month. 35.Section 77(2) of the Marriage Act mandates that the court’s discretion is not open-ended. The statute sets out specific, mandatory parameters a court must consider when determining both the threshold entitlement to maintenance and the appropriate quantum. The evaluation requires a delicate balancing act. 36.It is a cardinal principle of civil litigation that he who alleges must prove. In claims for spousal maintenance, the burden rests entirely and squarely on the claimant to demonstrate, through credible, cogent, and documentary evidence, their precise financial need and the Respondent's corresponding financial capacity to meet that specific need. 37.The most critical evidentiary tool in a maintenance claim is the Affidavit of Means. This document is not merely procedural; it is the substantive bedrock upon which a court assesses the financial realities of the parties. The Court of Appeal definitively addressed the absolute necessity of this document in P K M v R P M [2017] eKLR, emphasizing that whenever a Court is faced with an application for maintenance, parties must furnish comprehensive, sworn information regarding their financial circumstances. The Court of Appeal stated unequivocally:“The provisions in Rule 44 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules requiring spouses to file affidavits setting out full particulars of property and income (generally referred to as affidavit of means) where alimony or maintenance is sought must be seen in this light. They are to assist the court to make an informed decision. Indeed under Rule 48... the court is empowered to undertake 'investigation' and has power to order discovery...". 38.The Court of Appeal further noted that an Affidavit of Means must set out, in granular detail, each party's expenses, income, assets, and liabilities. In the absence of an Affidavit of Means, a court is left blind, forced to rely on oral assertions and speculation, which is legally impermissible. 39.This strict evidentiary requirement was recently reaffirmed in SMK v AW (Civil Appeal E076 of 2024) KEHC 12326 (KLR). In that case, the Court held that a party's decision to withhold vital information regarding their exact earnings and financial capacity is inherently fatal to their claim for maintenance. Similarly, in GDM v CMM (Divorce Cause 01 of 2019) eKLR, the Court held that a maintenance figure cannot be plucked from the air and imposed on the respondent; the petitioner must provide concrete documentary information on their income to demonstrate they are deserving of an order, otherwise the claim must fail. 40.A rigorous review of the trial court record reveals glaring, insurmountable evidentiary deficiencies in the Appellant's case. While the Appellant boldly pleaded for a maintenance sum of Kshs. 500,000/= per month, she entirely failed to file an Affidavit of Means. The record is completely devoid of any structured, sworn breakdown of her monthly expenses, her current income, her tax returns, her bank statements, or the quantified cost of her basic needs. 41.The Appellant argues that the trial court ignored oral and documentary evidence regarding the vast wealth accumulated during the marriage. She points to a litany of properties allegedly acquired jointly, including L.R. No. 209/7457 Kanjata Road (alleged to generate rental income of Kshs. 350,000/= per month), Lamuria Gardens (alleged to generate Kshs. 2,000,000/= per month), and various lucrative businesses such as Ishano Distributors Limited and Jukumu Enterprises Limited. The Appellant claims these collective properties and businesses generate over Kshs. 100 million in monthly turnover, and complains that she is entirely excluded from the proceeds by the Respondent. 42.However, this Court must balance these broad assertions of the Respondent's wealth against the evidence elicited regarding the Appellant's own capacity, which emerged prominently during cross-examination. The record paints a picture of the Appellant not as a helpless, incapacitated dependent, but as a highly educated, commercially astute, and professionally capable individual. 43.The evidence confirms that the appellant holds a Bachelor of Commerce and Accounting degree from the prestigious University of Nairobi. Furthermore, it is on record that after the initial separation in 2001, the Appellant travelled abroad for further studies and successfully obtained a Master of Science degree in Maritime Economics and Logistics from Erasmus University, Rotterdam, graduating in 2002. 44.Moreover, the evidence demonstrates that the Appellant is the sole proprietor of an active business enterprise known as Lagoon Logistics, which she has operated continuously since 2002. While she alleged before the trial court that her business was not liquid and was suffering financial distress, she failed to produce a single ledger, book of account, bank statement, or audited financial report to substantiate this claim of illiquidity. It is highly contradictory for an accountant and logistics expert running a two-decade-old business to claim total destitution without providing the documentary proof required to pierce her own assertions. Furthermore, the Respondent adduced uncontroverted evidence that the Appellant had recently purchased a motor vehicle registration KCT 264A Station Wagon for her mother, suggesting a level of disposable income and financial autonomy that is fundamentally incompatible with her claims of absolute dependency. 45.The binding jurisprudence from M E K v G L M and W.M.M. v B.M.L. is crystal clear: Article 45(3) of the Constitution dictates that a spouse who is capable of earning a living should not be allowed to shirk their responsibility to support themselves, nor should they be permitted to turn their former spouse into a permanent financial host. The Appellant is an accountant and a maritime logistics expert operating her own enterprise. By wilfully failing to file an Affidavit of Means or produce the financial records of Lagoon Logistics, the Appellant effectively invited the trial court to make a financial ruling in the dark. 46.A monthly award of Kshs. 500,000/= is a massive financial imposition. To award such a sum without a granular, evidenced breakdown of actual need (e.g., housing, medical, utilities, food) and a corresponding transparent declaration of the Appellant's own income streams, would amount to judicial caprice and an arbitrary redistribution of wealth. As firmly held in GDM v CMM, financial figures cannot be arbitrarily plucked from the air. 47.Therefore, while the trial Magistrate erred procedurally in holding that the claim was entirely not pleaded, she was ultimately correct in her substantive observation that the Appellant failed to produce any sufficient materials to warrant a determination of the issue of maintenance. The Appellant failed to discharge the strict evidentiary burden required to trigger the court's discretion under Section 77 of the Marriage Act. The Corporate Veil and the Intersection with Matrimonial Property 48.A secondary, yet profoundly significant, issue raised in this appeal pertains to the specific source of the funds from which the Appellant sought to draw her spousal maintenance. The Appellant’s pleadings and submissions heavily reference the massive incomes generated by corporate entities, specifically Ishano Distributors Limited and Jukumu Enterprises Limited. She claims she was an equal shareholder in these entities at inception, and that the respondent has unlawfully altered the shareholding, ousted her from directorships, and drawn massive sums for his exclusive use. 49.The respondent correctly raises a fatal jurisdictional and conceptual objection to this approach. Ishano Distributors Limited and Jukumu Enterprises Limited are registered limited liability companies. Under the foundational principles of corporate law, famously established in the English House of Lords decision of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd AC 22 and universally applied in Kenyan corporate jurisprudence, a company is a distinct, artificial legal entity, entirely separate and independent from its shareholders and directors. 50.These corporate entities were not parties to the divorce proceedings in the lower court. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court in a divorce cause under the Marriage Act is strictly limited to the dissolution of the marriage and the immediate, personal ancillary reliefs between the two spouses. A family court dealing with a divorce petition cannot arbitrarily pierce the corporate veil, alter shareholding structures, investigate corporate fraud, or order corporate entities to disburse company revenues as personal spousal maintenance without those entities being properly joined to the suit and afforded a right to be heard. Issuing such orders would constitute a gross violation of the cardinal constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of The Constitution and a breach of the rules of natural justice. 51.Furthermore, disputes regarding the alleged fraudulent alteration of shareholding, corporate governance, the removal of directors, and the distribution of corporate dividends fall exclusively within the purview of the Companies Act, 2015. Such complex commercial disputes are properly litigated before the Commercial and Tax Division of the High Court, not a Magistrate's divorce court. 52.Crucially, the Appellant herself acknowledges in her amended pleadings that there is a separate, concurrent suit pending before the High Court—specifically H.C.C.C No. 21 of 2016 (Originating Summons)—which was filed expressly for the preservation, declaration, and distribution of matrimonial property. The division of the vast real estate portfolio (Kanjata Road, Lamuria Gardens, Nyangumi Villas, etc.) and the determination of the beneficial ownership of the corporate shares detailed in the Appellant's pleadings must be meticulously addressed within that specific matrimonial property suit, governed by the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013. 53.This Court must draw a firm jurisprudential line: spousal maintenance in a divorce cause is not, and must never be used as, a backdoor mechanism for the premature distribution of matrimonial property or the extraction of corporate assets. While a court assessing a maintenance claim must certainly consider the property of each spouse as a factor under Section 77(2) of the Marriage Act, it cannot use a maintenance order to pre-emptively distribute disputed corporate wealth that is the very subject of concurrent, specialized High Court litigation. 54.If the Appellant is genuinely suffering financial prejudice due to the Respondent's unilateral control of joint assets and corporate dividends pending the final determination of H.C.C.C No. 21 of 2016, her appropriate and lawful remedy is to seek interim injunctive reliefs, preservation orders, or an order for an interim distribution of income within that specific property suit. Seeking an arbitrary, unevidenced Kshs. 500,000/= monthly extraction from corporate revenues disguised as spousal maintenance in a divorce cause is procedurally improper and legally untenable. 55.In view of the foregoing, this Court makes the following orders:i.The appeal is hereby dismissed.ii.The procedural finding of the trial court that the claim for maintenance was "unpleaded" is set aside and corrected on the record; however, the substantive prayer for an award of Kshs. 500,000/= per month is denied in its entirety for lack of evidentiary proof and failure to file an Affidavit of Means.iii.Each party shall bear their own costs herein. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 10 DAY OF JULY 2026HELENE R. NAMISIJUDGE OF THE HIGH COURTDelivered on virtual platform in the presence of:Court Assistant: Lucy Mwangi