SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

MIM v FMM; AAM (Interested Party) (Civil Appeal 633 of 2019) [2025] KECA 737 (KLR) (2 May 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KECA 737 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
737
Citation
[2025] KECA 737 (KLR)
Decided
2 May 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal from the judgement and decree of the High Court at Nairobi (Ougo, J.) delivered on 28th November 2018CoramFA OCHIENG, KA, Kiage, No. KA, Ougo
Holding

We find merit in the appeal with respect to Kayole Plot C1-4X1, and order that it be apportioned equally between the appellant and the respondent.

Facts

MIM and FMM were married under customary law in 1985 and later formalized their union in 1996. They had four children and jointly acquired various properties and shares in several banks and airlines. MIM claimed she contributed financially and non-financially to the properties, while FMM denied owning Kayole Plot C1-4X2 and claimed the proceeds were used for their children's education and medical expenses.

Issues

  1. Whether Kayole Plot C1-4X2 is matrimonial property
  2. Whether MIM is entitled to a share of the properties

Reasoning

The appellant produced documentary evidence to support her claim of contribution toward the acquisition of Kayole Plot C1-4X1. The respondent's allegation of theft of receipts was unsubstantiated.

Outcome

Appeal allowed with respect to Kayole Plot C1-4X1

Orders

  • Order that Kayole Plot C1-4X1 be apportioned equally between the appellant and the respondent
  • Order that the property be subjected to valuation with costs borne equally by both parties
  • Order that each party bear their own costs of the appeal

Remedies

  • Apportionment of Kayole Plot C1-4X1 equally between the appellant and the respondent

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Matrimonial Property Act
Cases cited (1)
  • JOO v MBO
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.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case