[2025] KEHC 8654 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 8654 (KLR)

Neither party adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of equal beneficial interest in the jointly registered matrimonial properties. Both the Plaintiff and Defendant failed to provide adequate documentary proof of their respective direct or indirect contributions to the acquisition of the properties. In the absence of clear evidence establishing unequal contributions, the court applied the maxim 'equality is equity' and held that the parties are entitled to equal shares in the disputed properties. The properties are to be valued and sold, with proceeds shared equally, and each party is given a priority right to buy out the other in one property, considering the...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 8654 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: VKM; Defendant: PKM
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
3 June 2025
Case Number
Matrimonial Cause E095 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Cause / Judgment
Outcome
Properties to be valued and sold; proceeds to be shared equally between Plaintiff and Defendant. Each party given priority to buy out the other in one property. Costs of valuation and sale to be shared equally. No order as to costs.
Judges
CJ Kendagor
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property, Division of Property, Contribution Assessment, Joint Ownership, Rebuttable Presumption, Equality Is Equity
Source Language
English
Family and Children Matrimonial Property Division of Property Contribution Assessment Joint Ownership Rebuttable Presumption Equality Is Equity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VKM

Plaintiff

PKM

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Cause / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff or Defendant rebutted the presumption of equal beneficial interest in jointly registered matrimonial property.
  2. 2 How the matrimonial properties should be divided between the parties upon dissolution of marriage.

Ratio Decidendi

Neither party adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of equal beneficial interest in the jointly registered matrimonial properties. Both the Plaintiff and Defendant failed to provide adequate documentary proof of their respective direct or indirect contributions to the acquisition of the properties. In the absence of clear evidence establishing unequal contributions, the court applied the maxim 'equality is equity' and held that the parties are entitled to equal shares in the disputed properties. The properties are to be valued and sold, with proceeds shared equally, and each party is given a priority right to buy out the other in one property, considering the...

Court Disposition

Properties to be valued and sold; proceeds to be shared equally between Plaintiff and Defendant. Each party given priority to buy out the other in one property. Costs of valuation and sale to be shared equally. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff and Defendant are entitled to Land Reference Number 2XX/19XXX (Original Number 2XX/12XXX) in equal shares; property to be valued and sold, proceeds shared equally.
  • Plaintiff given first priority to buy out Defendant in Land Reference Number 2XX/19XXX.