[2017] KEHC 3926 (KLR)
The court held that since the applicant had withdrawn the suit in its entirety and there was no counter-claim or cross-petition filed by the respondent in the Originating Summons, there was no basis for the court to consider the respondent’s defence or claim independently. The court further noted the absence of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 3926 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: SB; Respondent: GSB also known as GSB 2
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 36 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Summons / Ruling on Withdrawal of Suit
- Outcome
- Suit withdrawn; respondent directed to file a substantive suit to pursue any claim.
- Judges
- LA Achode
- Legal Topics
- Matrimonial Property Distribution, Withdrawal of Suit, Injunctions, Division of Land
- 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
SB
Applicant
GSB also known as GSB 2
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Ruling on Withdrawal of Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can determine the respondent's share in matrimonial property after the applicant has withdrawn the suit.
- 2 Whether a replying affidavit constitutes a counter-claim or cross-petition in matrimonial property proceedings.
- 3 Whether the respondent must file a substantive suit to pursue his claim after withdrawal of the main suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the applicant had withdrawn the suit in its entirety and there was no counter-claim or cross-petition filed by the respondent in the Originating Summons, there was no basis for the court to consider the respondent’s defence or claim independently. The court further noted the absence of specific procedural rules under the Matrimonial Property Act regarding cross-petitions or counter-claims, but clarified that a replying affidavit alone does not suffice to sustain a claim after withdrawal of the main suit. Consequently, the respondent must file a substantive suit if he wishes to pursue his claim to a share in the matrimonial property.
Court Disposition
Suit withdrawn; respondent directed to file a substantive suit to pursue any claim.
Orders
- The suit is marked as withdrawn in its entirety.
- The respondent is at liberty to file a substantive suit if he wishes to pursue his claim to a share in the matrimonial property.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 36 OF 2013 (OS)
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 17 OF THE MARRIED WOMEN’S PROPERTY ACT (1882)
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT 2012
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE REGISTRATION ACT 2012
SB……………………….……APPLICANT/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
GSBalso known as
GSB 2……….…………….....RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
R U L I N G
1. In the Originating Summons filed on 28th February 2013 under certificate of urgency the Applicant wished the court to distribute matrimonial property between her and the Respondent. In the main both the Originating Summons and the Notice of Motion filed with it she prayed for a declaration that they held shares in the matrimonial property and that the property that is Nbi Block [Particulars Withheld] be sold and the proceeds be divided equally between them. In the interim she want the Respondent to be injuncted from wasting it.
2. In response the Respondent file a replying affidavit and grounds of opposition in which he denied the allegations of adultery and assault raised by the Applicant. He asserted that he had contributed majorly to the acquisition of the matrimonial property and was not averse to it being shared on a 50%-50% basis between them.
3. Four years down the line, without setting down the main petition for hearing and determination the Applicant filed a Notice to withdraw the whole suit.
4. Learned Counsel Mr. Goswami for the Respondent did not object to the withdrawal of the suit but prayed that the court do proceed to determine his client’s share in the matrimonial property. For that reason he sought a hearing date, to which Mr. Khasian who appeared for the Applicant objected saying there was no longer any suit for which a hearing date could issue.
5. I am alive to the fact that the rules of procedure in matrimonial properties Act No. 49 of 2013 have not yet been developed. There are therefore no provisions to direct litigants whether they should file cross-petitions or Counter Claims in these matters. In essence a Respondent’s affidavit in reply, forms the counter claim if any, in such matters.
6. I am of the view however, that the suit having been withdrawn in its entirety and there being no counter-claim or cross-petition in the Originating Summons, there is no basis for the court to consider the defence on its own. For that reason the court directs that the Respondent should file a substantive suit if he wishes to pursue his claim.
It is so ordered.
SIGNED DATEDandDELIVEREDin open court this25th day of July 2017.
………………..
L. A. ACHODE
JUDGE
In the Presence of: ……….……..Counsel for the Applicant
In the Presence of: ……………...Counsel for the Respondent