The Court of Appeal upheld a 50-50 division of matrimonial property, holding that both spouses made direct and non-monetary contributions over a 33-year marriage.
The court found that all the listed properties were acquired during the subsistence of the marriage and thus constitute matrimonial property under the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013. Although the Applicant failed to prove any direct financial contribution to the acquisition of the properties, the court recognized her significant non-monetary contributions over the 41-year marriage, including domestic work, child care, and supporting the family during periods of the Respondent's unemployment. The court held that disregarding such non-monetary contributions would violate the equality principle…
The High Court held that two parcels acquired during marriage were matrimonial property and ordered equal sharing, recognizing the applicant’s non-monetary contributions.
The court found that both the plaintiff (widow) and the defendants (brothers) had a right to participate in the burial of the deceased, but the central dispute was the place of burial. There was no credible evidence of an express wish by the deceased regarding his burial place. The deceased had ties to both his ancestral home in Kisii and his matrimonial home in Nakuru, having buried his children in Kisii but constructed a retirement home in Nakuru where he lived with his nuclear family. Gusii customary law, as codified in case law, grants the widow the right to bury her spouse, but this righ…
The High Court at Nakuru overruled a preliminary objection in a matrimonial cause and granted an interlocutory injunction to preserve disputed property pending trial.
The division of matrimonial property is based on the contribution of each spouse, monetary and non-monetary, towards its acquisition. The court must make a fair and equitable division taking into account various factors including direct and indirect contributions, the timing of acquisition, and the circumstances of each case, recognizing that equality under Article 45(3) of the Constitution does not automatically mean a 50/50 split.
The court granted the unopposed application for an interlocutory injunction based on the applicant's uncontested evidence demonstrating the acquisition of property during the marriage, potential prejudice if the property is disposed of, and the respondent's failure to defend the application.
The High Court at Kiambu granted an unopposed interim injunction protecting disputed motor vehicles said to be matrimonial property and ordered their release pending the main suit.
The court determined that, at the interlocutory stage, it is not appropriate to make final findings on the substantive legal and factual issues. However, given the factual matrix and the ongoing dispute over the matrimonial properties, the court found it just and equitable to preserve the status quo as agreed by the parties on 25th January 2024. This approach ensures that neither party is prejudiced pending the full hearing and determination of the main suit, where evidence will be tested and final submissions made. The court also considered the relationship between the parties and the need t…