[2017] KEHC 3744 (KLR)
The court found that the documentary evidence provided by the applicant, particularly the certificate of lease, was insufficient and unreadable, making it impossible to conclusively determine ownership or entitlement to the property and household goods on the basis of written submissions alone. The court held that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 3744 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: N. W. G.; Defendant: S. M. K.
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 12 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Interlocutory Ruling on Mode of Disposal
- Outcome
- Suit to proceed to hearing by oral and affidavit evidence; no final determination on merits at this stage.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Matrimonial Property Disputes, Ownership of Land, Division of Assets on Divorce
- 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
N. W. G.
Plaintiff
S. M. K.
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Ruling on Mode of Disposal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is the sole owner of the matrimonial property in question.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to the full value of the property and household goods.
- 3 Whether the matter can be determined on written submissions alone or requires oral evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the documentary evidence provided by the applicant, particularly the certificate of lease, was insufficient and unreadable, making it impossible to conclusively determine ownership or entitlement to the property and household goods on the basis of written submissions alone. The court held that justice would not be served by proceeding without oral evidence, as critical facts remained unproven and the documents required clarification and authentication. Consequently, the court directed that the matter be disposed of by way of oral and affidavit evidence to ensure a fair and just determination of the issues in dispute.
Court Disposition
Suit to proceed to hearing by oral and affidavit evidence; no final determination on merits at this stage.
Orders
- The suit shall be disposed of by way of oral and affidavit evidence.
- Parties to obtain hearing dates at the registry.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 12 OF 2015 (OS)
N. W. G .…………………………………….…….….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
S. M. K.…………………………….…………….…DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The Originating Summons dated 3rd August 2015, which was filed at this registry on 11th August 2015 by the plaintiff, seeks the following principal orders: -
(a) A declaration that the property known as House No. [particulars withheld] Buru Buru Phase II was acquired and developed by funds and efforts of the applicant wholly to the exclusion of the respondent;
(b) A declaration that the applicant is entitled to full value of the said property estimated to be Kshs 8,000,000. 00; and
(c) A declaration that the household goods within the house valued at Kshs 300,000. 00 or thereabout were acquired by the applicant and that the respondent holds the same in trust for her.
2. The suit is founded on the grounds set out on the face of the application, as well as on the facts deposed in the affidavit in support. The parties contacted a statutory marriage on 26th December 1998, and have not been blessed with issue. Their union has fallen into tough times, culminating in divorce proceedings in CMCDC No. [particulars withheld] of 2013. It is alleged that at the time of contracting the marriage the applicant was working at NSSF, which I presume stands for the National Social Security Fund, while the respondent was unemployed or was not working. The applicant then acquired the subject property through a mortgage scheme offered by her employer. She was run out of the house by the respondent in 2013. She states that she has been kept out of the property, and the respondent is busy carrying out alterations to it without her consent.
3. Several documents are attached to the affidavit to buttress the applicant’s case. There is a certificate of marriage, serial number [particulars withheld] showing that the parties went through a ceremony of marriage at the Full Gospel Church, Buru Buru, sometime in 1998. There is also copy of a petition for dissolution of that marriage filed in Milimani CMCDC No. [particulars withheld] of 2013. There is a faint copy of certificate of lease presumably in respect of the subject property. It is however so faint that I am unable to read its critical details. There is also copy of correspondence exchanged between NSSF and a firm of advocates over staff loans; unfortunately the same says nothing about the applicant. There is too copy of a cheque drawn in favour of a firm of advocates for a sum of Kshs. 1,756,216. 00.
4. The respondent appears to have been served with court process for he did appear on 18th December 2015 but he did not file any response to it. On account of the lack of opposition to the suit, the applicant sought, on 15th May 2016 to have the matter disposed of by way of written submissions. Her request was acceded to. Curiously, it was after those directions that the respondent filed his response to the suit. His replying affidavit was filed without leave of court. I note that both sides did file their respective written submissions.
5. I have looked at the documents annexed in support of the summons, and I am not satisfied that I can dispose of the matter before me purely on written submissions. The most critical document here is the certificate of lease. It is through this document that the applicant seeks to demonstrate that she is the sole owner of the property given that she is the sole proprietor of the lease. Yet the copy attached to the supporting affidavit is so faint that it is a completely useless piece of paper. I cannot read the land reference number or the details of the proprietorship. The other documents attached to the affidavit relates to staff loans and cheques, but none of them make any reference to the applicant. There is no knowing whether the applicant had anything to do with them. There is need for life to be breathed into these documents. It would work injustice if I were to proceed on the basis of what is before me without taking oral evidence. If I were to do so, no doubt, I would have no option but to dismiss the suit.
6. In the end I direct that the suit herein be disposed of by way of oral and affidavit evidence. Parties to obtain dates for hearing at the registry.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE