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

EKTM v ECC (Matrimonial Cause E001 of 2021) [2021] KEHC 1359 (KLR) (2 December 2021) (Judgment)

[2021] KEHC 1359 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1359
Citation
[2021] KEHC 1359 (KLR)
Decided
2 December 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMatrimonial CausePostureApplication for declaration and distribution of matrimonial propertyCoramG.V Odunga, GN, Kemei, Kiage, Mwangusya, Nyakundi
Holding

The house is matrimonial property and should be distributed to the Applicant and Respondent in a 90:10 ratio based on their contributions.

Facts

The Applicant and Respondent got married in December 2013 and had a marriage dissolved on September 2, 2020. They sought the distribution of a house acquired during their marriage.

Issues

  1. Whether the house is matrimonial property
  2. Distribution of the house between the parties

Reasoning

The court applied Article 45(3) of the Constitution and Section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013, to determine that the parties' contributions to the house's acquisition and development should be considered for distribution.

Outcome

The court granted the application for the distribution of the house.

Orders

  • The house should be distributed to the Applicant and Respondent in a 90:10 ratio based on their contributions

Remedies

  • The Applicant is allowed to purchase the Respondent's share of the house and register it in the Applicant's name

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Matrimonial Property Act, 2013
  • Constitution of Kenya
Cases cited (4)
  • T.M.V. vs F.M.C (2018) eKLR
  • Paul Kagwa vs. Jackline Muteteri (Matrimonial Cause-2005/23) [2006] UGHC 17 (18 May 2006)
  • ENN vs. SNK [2021] eKLR
  • P.O.M vs. M.N.K (2017) eKLR
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