The Kadhi’s Court held that a six-unit development on the respondent’s land was matrimonial property and awarded the applicant KES 480,000, reflecting a 60% share.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's approach to the division of matrimonial property, finding that the trial judge properly considered both direct and indirect contributions of the parties, the timing and manner of acquisition of each property, and the applicable legal principles. The Otiende Estate property was acquired by the respondent before marriage and with his own resources, thus not qualifying as matrimonial property. The presumption of joint ownership in the Kahawa West property was rebutted by evidence that the appellant had already benefited from family resources to acquire…
The Court of Appeal found that the High Court erred by failing to properly evaluate and recognize the appellant's indirect (non-monetary) contributions to the acquisition of matrimonial property, as required by law. The trial judge wrongly disregarded the appellant's non-monetary contributions and based the distribution primarily on the name in which properties were registered or on offers made by the respondent, rather than on the proportion of direct and indirect contributions. The appellate court emphasized that both direct and indirect contributions must be considered in determining propr…