[2020] KEHC 10259 (KLR)
The court found that the properties in question were acquired during the subsistence of the marriage and thus constituted matrimonial property under the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013. The applicant's evidence regarding the acquisition and contribution to the properties was unchallenged, as the respondent did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 10259 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: JWM; Respondent: ANKW
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 48 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Summons / Judgment
- Outcome
- originating summons allowed in part; properties distributed as per applicant's concessions; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Matrimonial Property, Division of Property, Contribution Assessment
- 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
JWM
Applicant
ANKW
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the listed properties constitute matrimonial property subject to division upon dissolution of marriage.
- 2 What are the respective contributions of the applicant and respondent to the acquisition and development of the properties.
- 3 How should the properties be distributed between the parties in accordance with their contributions and the law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the properties in question were acquired during the subsistence of the marriage and thus constituted matrimonial property under the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013. The applicant's evidence regarding the acquisition and contribution to the properties was unchallenged, as the respondent did not defend the summons. The applicant made concessions during the hearing, abandoning his claim to the Dandora property, reducing his claim on the Umoja property to 20% (to be gifted to the daughter), and seeking to keep the Ruiru property absolutely. The court accepted these concessions and ordered the properties to be distributed accordingly: the Dandora property to the respondent...
Court Disposition
originating summons allowed in part; properties distributed as per applicant's concessions; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The respondent shall absolutely keep and be registered in respect of plot No. D – **** – Dandora Area 4 – Nairobi.
- The applicant shall absolutely keep and be registered in respect of LR No. **** - South Ruiru, Kiambu township.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
HCC CASE NO. 48 OF 2018 (OS)
IN THE MATTER OF DIVISION OF MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY
AND
IN THE MATTER OF MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY ACT, 29013
BETWEEN
JWM...........................................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
ANKW.......................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The applicant JWM and the respondent ANKW. got married at the Holy Family Cathedral in Nairobi on 1st March 1980. The marriage was dissolved on 26th February 2009. They have four adult children.
2. In the cause of the marriage they acquired three properties. The parties jointly contributed to the acquisition and development of the properties. The properties are:-
a) House No. H.**** – Umoja Estate, Phase I;
b) LR No. **** – South Ruiru, Kiambu Township; and
c) Plot No. D-****- Dandora Area 4, Nairobi.
3. The applicant filed this originating summons dated 1st August 2018 asking that the properties be declared to be matrimonial property. He asked that it be declared that he contributed 70% and the respondent 30% in property (2(a)); he contributed 65% and the respondent 35% in property (2(b)); and that their contribution to the acquisition of property (2(c)) was equal. The prayer was that the properties and their developments be valued, sold and the proceeds shared in the stated ratios.
4. The respondent was served but did not defend the originating summons.
5. The applicant testified to support the summons and his evidence was not challenged. He abandoned his claim on Dandora property which he said should go to the respondent. On Umoja property, he stated that he would claim only 20% over Umoja property, and gift his daughter with the 20%. That means that the respondent would keep 80% of it. He asked to keep the Ruiru property absolutely (100%). Counsel Mr Siagi informed the court that the applicant made these concessions on the property after he had a discussion with the daughter.
6. On the evidence, I allow the originating summons in the following terms: -
(a) the respondent shall absolutely keep and be registered in respect of plot No. D – **** – Dandora Area 4 – Nairobi;
(b) the applicant shall absolutely keep and be registered in respect of LR No. **** - South Ruiru, Kiambu township; and
(c) the respondent shall be registered in respect of House No. H **** – Umoja Estate Phase I to hold in trust for herself (80%) and for their daughter (20%).
7. I make no order as to costs.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 5TH NOVEMBER 2020.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE