The High Court in Eldoret has declared that a disputed parcel of land, Plot
XX Munyaka Phase II, qualifies as matrimonial property and awarded a 50 percent
share to the applicant, GCR, in a landmark matrimonial property dispute with
her estranged husband, COO.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Reuben Nyakundi
ruled that she had made both direct and indirect contributions to the property
during the subsistence of their marriage and was, therefore, entitled to an
equal share of its value.
The court issued a declaration confirming the
property as matrimonial property specifically to the extent of developments and
improvements made between January 2017, when the couple legally married, and
their separation in 2019.
“The applicant is entitled to a fifty percent
(50 percent) share in Plot XX Munyaka Phase II and the developments thereon,”
the judgment reads in part, “which share reflects her direct and indirect
contributions during the marriage period, balanced against the respondent’s
foundational investment and pre-marital contributions.”
Evidence presented in court showed that the
man had purchased the land and commenced construction before meeting the woman
in 2014.
The two began cohabiting in the same year and formalised their union in
January 2017.
During the pre-marital period, the woman contributed Sh1,042,000 towards
property development.
However, the court ruled that only contributions made during the marriage
could be considered under the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013.
Following their marriage, she made further
documented contributions totalling Sh1,011,203, which included electrical
installations, plumbing, partitioning, perimeter wall construction, and other
improvements.
“These contributions were undoubtedly made during the
subsistence of the marriage and therefore qualify for consideration under the Matrimonial
Property Act,” the judgment read in part.
She also undertook non-financial responsibilities, including caring for the
couple’s child and managing the property after it was rented out in 2019 when
the couple experienced financial challenges.
Justice Nyakundi cited constitutional and
statutory provisions, including Article 45(3) of the Constitution and Section 6
of the Matrimonial Property Act, alongside precedent case, emphassing that
division of matrimonial property should be based on proven contributions, not
automatic equal sharing.
The court also issued an injunction
restraining the man from selling, transferring, leasing or otherwise
interfering with the property until final arrangements are made.
The parties were given 60 days to pursue options including physical
partition, a buy-out arrangement, or the sale and equitable distribution of
proceeds.
No order was made as to costs.
