https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6630

JKK v JKG (Civil Suit 53 of 2003) [2026] KEHC 6630 (KLR) (Family) (14 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6630 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Civil Suit 53 of 2003 HK Chemitei, J May 14, 2026 Between JKK Petitioner and JKG Respondent Ruling 1.This ruling originates from the order issued by Hon. Justice W. M. Musyoka on 11th March, 2019 which ordered that:1.Nairobi/Block 62/XXX Kibera Ayany be sold by private treaty and the proceeds of sale therefor be shared equally between the Plaintiff and the Defendant;2.The Plaintiff shall prepare and place before the court within forty-five (45) days a full and accurate account of the rent that she has collected in respect of the said property between 2nd November 2006 and the date of the account;3.The sharing of the proceeds of the sale to be carried out under (a) above shall await compliance with (b) above and any other or further orders as may be made subsequent to the filing of accounts;4.The Deputy Registrar of the Family Division shall execute all or any documents relevant to the sale ordered in (a) above;5.The matter shall be mentioned after forty-five (45) days for compliance; and6.The Defendant shall have the costs of the application 2.Subsequent to the order above, Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Odero delivered a ruling on 1st August, 2024. The ruling concerns a Notice of Motion dated 30th May, 2023 filed by Joseph Kinyua Gichanga seeking leave to institute contempt proceedings against Joyce Kamene Kinyua for alleged disobedience of court orders issued on 29th September, 2017. 3.The Applicant sought orders declaring the Respondent to be in contempt, punishment by imprisonment and/or fines and an order compelling her to provide a full and accurate account of rent collected from the property known as Nairobi/Block 62/XXX Kibera Ayany together with a copy of the title deed. 4.The background of the dispute is that the parties were formerly married, having cohabited from 1968 until their separation in 1997. The Respondent thereafter instituted proceedings for division of matrimonial property. 5.In a ruling delivered on 29th September, 2017, the court ordered that the Kibera property be sold by private treaty and the proceeds shared equally between the parties. The Respondent was further directed to file, within 45 days, a full and accurate account of rent collected from the property between 2nd November, 2006 and the date of the account, pending the eventual sharing of proceeds. 6.The Applicant alleged that despite the clear court orders, the Respondent had failed to file the required rental accounts or facilitate transfer documentation necessary for the sale of the property, thereby frustrating implementation of the court’s orders. He therefore urged the court to cite her for contempt. 7.In opposition, the Respondent admitted non-compliance but explained that she was unable to prepare the accounts because their son, who had occupied the property since 1997, had not been paying rent. 8.In its analysis, the court reiterated the legal principles governing contempt proceedings under Section 5 of the Judicature Act and emphasized that obedience to court orders is mandatory for all persons against whom such orders are issued. 9.The court cited authorities including Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd v Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & Another [2005] KLR 828, Oilfield Movers Ltd v Zahara Oil & Gas Limited [2020] eKLR and Sheila Cassatt Issenberg & another v Antony Machatha Kinyanjui [2021] eKLR, which underscore the importance of upholding the dignity and authority of the courts. 10.The court further observed that contempt proceedings require proof of willful and deliberate disobedience of a court order to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities. 11.Upon reviewing the record, the court found that the orders issued on 29th September, 2017 were clear, unequivocal and binding upon the Respondent. The court was satisfied that the Respondent had full knowledge of the orders through her advocates, who had been present in court when the ruling was delivered and had subsequently received correspondence reminding them of the orders. 12.The court further found that the Respondent had admittedly failed to comply with the requirement to render accounts within 45 days and that her explanation regarding lack of rental income was insufficient. According to the court, if no rent had been collected, the Respondent ought simply to have filed an account reflecting nil income or returned to court for clarification instead of ignoring the orders altogether. 13.The court concluded that the Respondent’s conduct amounted to deliberate and willful disobedience intended to frustrate the sale and sharing of the matrimonial property. Consequently, the court found her guilty of contempt of court and imposed a fine of Kshs. 50,000/= payable within 30 days, in default of which she would serve 30 days’ civil jail. Costs of the application were also awarded against the Respondent. 14.From the Judiciary Case Tracking System, it is shown that the Respondent paid the Kshs. 50, 000/= fine on 23rd August, 2024. She thereafter swore an affidavit dated 10th February, 2025 accompanied by an account statement dated 12th October, 2024 for the period 8th March, 2012 to 12th October, 2024 and the same issued by National Bank of Kenya. 15.She avers that the property known as Nairobi/Block 62/XXX Kibera Ayany has been occupied by the parties’ daughter, Jane Mateta Kinyua, since 1992 with the consent and blessing of the family and that she was later joined by her brother Albert Mumina Kinyua in 1996. From the year 2001, the son has resided on the property together with his wife and three children and it had been mutually agreed within the family that no rent would be charged or paid in respect of the property because it was being occupied for the benefit of the children and family members. 16.She maintains that she has not derived any rental income or financial benefit from the property since her children moved into occupation thereof. According to her, any occupation or use of the property has solely been for the welfare and accommodation of the children. 17.In support of her position, she annexes bank account statements from National Bank of Kenya which she claims demonstrate that she did not receive rental proceeds or financial gain from the property. The annexed National Bank of Kenya account statements cover the period between 8th March, 2012 and 12th October, 2024 and reflect ordinary banking transactions, including cash deposits, withdrawals, ATM transactions, bank charges, cheque deposits, commissions and occasional credits into the account. The statements also show prolonged periods of inactivity and low balances, with the account eventually being closed as a dormant account on 28th July, 2023. The records appear intended to demonstrate absence of consistent rental income or regular deposits attributable to rent collection from the suit property. 18.The Applicant swore a replying affidavit on 10th November, 2025, in response to the affidavit filed by Joyce Kamene Kinyua on 10th February, 2025 and regarding compliance with the court orders issued on 27th September, 2017. 19.He contends that the affidavit filed by the Respondent does not amount to compliance with the clear and binding orders of the court requiring her to prepare and file a full and accurate account of all rent collected from Nairobi/Block 62/XXX Kibera Ayany from 2nd November, 2006 to date. He further points out that the Respondent had previously been found in contempt of court by Justice Maureen Odero in the ruling delivered on 1st August, 2024 and fined Kshs. 50,000/= with directions to comply within 30 days. 20.He argues that the Respondent’s affidavit merely contains general assertions that the property had been occupied by their children and that no rent had been collected, but does not contain any formal accounting, computations, schedules or documentary material capable of constituting a full and accurate account as directed by the court. 21.He further states that the National Bank of Kenya statements annexed by the Respondent only cover limited periods between 2012 and 2024 and are incomplete and inconsistent with the period specified by the court order, namely from 2nd November, 2006 to date. According to him, there are substantial gaps within the statements, periods with no activity and the account itself was reportedly closed in July 2023, thereby leaving unexplained gaps before the filing of the affidavit. 22.He additionally faults the Respondent for referring to a Kenya Commercial Bank account without annexing the corresponding bank statements and contends that no explanation has been offered as to why statements from 2006 to 2012 were omitted. It is his position that these omissions are deliberate and intended to conceal the true financial position relating to the suit property while simultaneously evading the consequences of the contempt ruling. 23.He therefore characterizes the affidavit as self-serving and insufficient to meet the standard of compliance contemplated by the earlier rulings of the court. He further avers that the court orders remain unfulfilled to date and that the Respondent’s continued non-compliance has effectively frustrated enforcement of the judgment and denied him his lawful share of both the property and its income for nearly two decades. 24.Consequently, he urges the court to find that the Respondent remains in continuing contempt of court and to issue further orders necessary to compel compliance with the court’s directives. The affidavit also annexes copies of the earlier rulings and orders issued by the court. These include the order of Justice Musyoka directing sale of the Kibera property and requiring the Respondent to file rental accounts within 45 days, as well as the subsequent contempt ruling by Justice Odero which found that the Respondent had willfully failed to comply with the orders. The annexures reiterate the court’s position that obedience to court orders is mandatory and that failure to comply undermines the rule of law and administration of justice. 25.The parties have not filed written submissions.1.Top of Form2.Bottom of Form Analysis And Determination 26.I have carefully considered the affidavits on record, the annexures thereto, the previous rulings issued by this court and the applicable law. 27.The issue falling for determination is whether the affidavit and bank statements filed by the Respondent constitute sufficient compliance with the orders issued by Hon. Justice W. M. Musyoka requiring her to file a full and accurate account of rent collected from Nairobi/Block 62/XXX Kibera Ayany from 2nd November, 2006 to date, and whether the Respondent remains in contempt of court. 28.It is not disputed that the orders issued on 29th September, 2017 were clear, unequivocal and binding upon the Respondent. The said orders expressly directed the Respondent to prepare and place before the court, within 45 days, a full and accurate account of rent collected in respect of the suit property. 29.Equally undisputed is the fact that the Respondent failed to comply with those orders within the prescribed period, culminating in the ruling delivered by Hon. Justice Maureen Odero on 1st August, 2024 finding her guilty of contempt of court. The court in that ruling exhaustively analyzed the legal principles governing contempt proceedings and found that the Respondent had deliberately failed to obey the court’s directives. 30.Although the Respondent subsequently paid the fine imposed by the court and thereafter filed an affidavit dated 10th February, 2025 together with bank statements, the critical question remains whether the documents filed amount to substantive compliance with the original court orders. 31.In my view the material presently filed falls short of the standard contemplated in the order requiring a full and accurate account. The Respondent’s affidavit largely consists of explanations that the property was occupied by family members and that no rent was charged or received. While such explanation may be relevant, it does not by itself amount to a proper account. A proper account in the context of the orders issued by this court would ordinarily require a structured statement setting out the nature of occupation of the premises, the periods of occupation, any rental arrangements or waivers thereof, income received if any, expenses incurred in relation to the property and supporting documentation covering the entire period from 2nd November, 2006 to date. 32.The National Bank of Kenya statements annexed by the Respondent only cover the period between 8th March, 2012 and 12th October, 2024, leaving a substantial gap between 2006 and 2012 unexplained. 33.Further, although the Respondent referred to Kenya Commercial Bank accounts, no statements from that institution were produced. I also note that the bank statements annexed merely reflect ordinary banking transactions and do not conclusively demonstrate absence of rental income from the property. 34.That said, I take cognizance of the Respondent’s assertion that the property was occupied by the parties’ children with the blessing of the family and without expectation of rent. Such occupation, if proved, may ultimately explain the absence of rental income. Nonetheless, the Respondent was obligated to formally account to the court in the manner directed and within the timelines stipulated. Court orders are neither optional nor subject to selective compliance. The authority and dignity of the court can only be maintained where parties comply fully with lawful orders issued by courts of competent jurisdiction. 35.In the circumstances, I find that although the Respondent has made some effort towards compliance by filing an affidavit and partial bank statements, the same does not amount to full compliance with the orders issued on 29th September, 2017. The Respondent therefore remains in partial and continuing default of the said orders. 36.At the same time I do think that there is anything holding the compliance of order (a) of Musyoka’s J ruling dated 29th September 2017 assuming that they have not yet disposed the property. 37.In the premises I direct that:(a)The Respondent is hereby directed, within 30 days from the date hereof, to file and serve a comprehensive and properly itemized account covering the entire period from 2nd November, 2006 to date together with all relevant supporting documentation, including any Kenya Commercial Bank statements or other financial records relating to the property and in default, the Applicant shall be at liberty to move the court for further enforcement orders.(b)The parties be at liberty to comply with prayer (a) of the ruling dated 29th September 2017(c)Each party to bear its costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 2026.H K CHEMITEIJUDGE