SAYS SHE IS FINANCIALLY STABLE

Man challenges order to give ex-wife Sh180,000 monthly

High Court ordered him to pay her Sh120,000 monthly maintenance and Sh60,000 for anticipatory rent

In Summary

• Man argues his ex-wife lives with her mother, hence, does not require rent upkeep, is the director of a company that has provided a car and fuel. 

• He also accused his ex-wife and her family of instigating his removal from his directorship at an international company, which has hurt him financially.

Divorce.
MESSY: Divorce.
Image: FILE

A case in which a man has challenged an order to pay his ex-wife Sh180,000 monthly upkeep has been referred back to the High Court for review.

The Court of Appeal on Friday last week ruled the High Court erred in law when it did not review the maintenance as had been asked by the man who was seeking review of the orders issued in 2010 by Justice Kalpa Rawal.

The couple got married in 1988 but dissolved their marriage in 2008. Justice Rawal ordered the husband to pay Sh120,000 monthly maintenance and another Sh60,000 for anticipatory rent.

At the time, he appealed the decision and managed to get a stay of the execution in 2010.

However, in 2017 his former wife filed a case seeking to lift the stay orders, leading the case to the High Court before Justice Aggrey Muchelule.

In their ruling, justices Roselyne Nambuye, Martha Koome and Fatuma Sichale held that Muchelule had erred in law by not determining the issue of review of the terms.

“It is our finding that the judge exercised his discretion wrongly in deeming the orders of February 11, 2010, to have lapsed with the withdrawal of the notice of appeal because these were the very orders that the appellant had appealed against. They could not, therefore, have lapsed with the withdrawal of the notice of appeal,” the court ruled.

However, the judges ruled that even though the court did not determine the request as sought on the review, they would equally not determine it but refer it back to the High Court.

“The appeal is allowed. The orders of March 6, 2018, are set aside and substituted with an order remitting the matter back to the High Court for rehearing,” the court held.

The man claims his estranged wife was a person of extremely good financial means, a businessperson in gainful employment with considerable wealth and assets and more than capable of maintaining herself.

She is the director of a company and since she lives with her mother, he argues,  she is not entitled to rent upkeep.

“I am aware that she received rental income from properties she jointly owned with her family members, inclusive of a joint bank account with her mother whose proceeds she benefited from. She also enjoyed the facility of a company car fueled by the company of which she was a director,” he said.

He also accused his ex-wife and her family of instigating his removal from the directorship at an international company, which has damaged him financially.

Edited by R.Wamochie