MWK v CWN (Civil Appeal 250 of 2018) [2023] KECA 235 (KLR) (3 March 2023) (Judgment)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- 235
- Citation
- [2023] KECA 235 (KLR)
- Decided
- 3 March 2023
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a High Court ruling
Holding
The court held that the appellant is entitled to a 50% share of the property and ordered its valuation, sale, and equal sharing of proceeds.
Facts
The appellant and respondent are estranged and have been involved in litigation regarding their marriage and matrimonial property since 2010. The appellant filed a divorce cause and an originating summons, seeking a 50% share of a property registered in their joint terms.
Issues
- Whether the appellant is entitled to a 50% share of the property acquired during the subsistence of the marriage and registered in their joint terms.
- Whether the court should create a trust in favor of the child and the appellant's position on this matter.
Reasoning
The court held that the appellant is entitled to a 50% share based on the assignment and sale agreements, which indicate joint ownership. The court also noted the respondent's failure to establish the intention to create a trust.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- That the appellant is entitled to half share beneficial interest in the property
- That the property shall be valued with the participation of both parties and sold, with proceeds shared equally
- That the respondent be ordered to remit to the appellant the beneficial interest in the property in monetary terms
- That the appellant have costs of the suit
Remedies
- Order for the appellant to have half share of the property
- Order for the property to be valued and sold with proceeds shared equally
- Order for the respondent to remit the beneficial interest in the property in monetary terms
- Order for the appellant to have costs of the suit
Authorities cited
Cases cited (2)
- Civil Appeal no 22 of 1994 K D Shah v Prakash Vrajlal Malkan & Another
- Mbogo & Another v Shah, EA 93
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Loading judgment…