[2018] KEHC 10197 (KLR)
The court determined that both the land and the motor vehicle were matrimonial property to which both parties had contributed. The court accepted the respective contributions as previously determined: 25% for the applicant and 75% for the respondent for the land, and 50% each for the vehicle. In the face of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 10197 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: P W W; Respondent: F N K
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 32 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part; orders made for payment of applicant's share in land and vehicle; each party to bear own costs.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule, AN Ongeri
- Legal Topics
- Matrimonial Property, Division of Property, Valuation of Assets
- 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
P W W
Applicant
F N K
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether L.R. No. 10901/[particulars withheld] Kahawa Sukari and motor vehicle Toyota Spacio KAY [particulars withheld] are matrimonial property subject to division.
- 2 What is the appropriate method for valuing the matrimonial property for purposes of division.
- 3 What proportion of the value of the land and vehicle should be paid to the applicant by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that both the land and the motor vehicle were matrimonial property to which both parties had contributed. The court accepted the respective contributions as previously determined: 25% for the applicant and 75% for the respondent for the land, and 50% each for the vehicle. In the face of differing expert valuations for the land, the court took the average of the two submitted reports to arrive at a fair market value. For the vehicle, only the applicant provided a valuation, which the court accepted. The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant her respective shares within 60 days, after which the applicant would give vacant possession of the land. Each party...
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part; orders made for payment of applicant's share in land and vehicle; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- Respondent to pay applicant Kshs.3,115,525 within 60 days for her 25% share in the land, after which applicant to give vacant possession.
- Respondent to pay applicant Kshs.190,000 within 60 days for her 50% share in the vehicle.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
CIVIL SUIT NO. 32 OF 2010 (O.S)
P W W..............................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
F N K............................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. On 26th September 2014 the court determined that L.R. No. 10901/[particulars withheld] Kahawa Sukari and motor vehicle Toyota Spacio KAY [particulars withheld] were matrimonial property which both the applicant P W W and the respondent F N K had contributed to their acquisition. For LR No. 10901/ [particulars withheld], it was found that the applicant’s contribution was 25% and the respondent’s was 75%. For the vehicle, they had each contributed 50%. The court asked that each party appoints a valuer to value the land and the vehicle and to present the report which would form the basis for the determination of the actual sum to be paid to the applicant. For the land, it was determined that the respondent would pay the applicant 25% of the same and thereafter the applicant would give its vacant possession. For the vehicle, the respondent was to pay 50% of its value to the applicant.
2. For the land property, the respondent appointed Dantu Valuers Ltd who valued it at Kshs.10,925,000/=. The land comprises a detached single storeyed house with external laundry, external garage and chicken pens. The applicant instructed Cyrus Kariuki & Associates who valued the property at Kshs.14,000,000/=.
3. These valuers are experts in their field. It was held in Juliet Karisa –v- Joseph Barawa & Another, Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1988 (C.A.) that expert evidence is entitled to the highest possible regard, and though the court is not bound to accept and follow it, it must form its own independent opinion based on the entire evidence before it. Such evidence must not be rejected except on firm grounds.
4. These valuers have each a different value attached to the property; a valuation whose difference is over Kshs.3,000,000/=. In the particular circumstances of this case, I put the property’s market value to be the average of the two reports. This would be Kshs.12,462,500/=. 25% of it would be Kshs.3,115,525/=. Accordingly, I direct the respondent to pay to the applicant Kshs.3,115,525/= within 60 days, following which the applicant shall give vacant possession of the same to the respondent.
5. For the motor vehicle, the applicant got Autostar Assessors and Valuers Ltd to give it a value of Kshs.380,000/=. The respondent did not provide a valuation report. I will accept Kshs.380,000/= to be the value of the vehicle. 50% of it would be Kshs.190,000/=. I ask the respondent to pay the applicant Kshs.190,000/= within 60 days.
6. This was a family dispute. Each party shall bear own costs.
DATED and SIGNED at NAIROBI this 22ND OCTOBER 2018
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 23RD OCTOBER 2018
A.N. ONGERI
JUDGE