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

ASW v WN (Matrimonial Cause 8 of 2017) [2024] KEHC 2014 (KLR) (Family) (1 March 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KEHC 2014 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2014
Citation
[2024] KEHC 2014 (KLR)
Decided
1 March 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMatrimonial CausePostureRespondent seeks to be deemed in contempt and for orders regarding property and costsCoramP M NYAUNDI
Holding

The Respondent is not in contempt of the mediation agreement and the application is allowed on certain terms

Facts

The Applicant seeks orders to remove caveats and restrictions on properties, and for the Respondent to be deemed in contempt of a mediation agreement. The Respondent opposed the application and filed an originating summons seeking declarations regarding property ownership.

Issues

  1. Whether the application has merit
  2. Interpretation of the consent agreements

Reasoning

The latter consent agreement does not require the transfer of the property to the Respondent and the delay in finalizing the transaction has caused hardship to the Applicant. The terms of the consent dated 13th June 2019 are to be complied with within 60 days.

Outcome

Application allowed on certain terms

Orders

  • Respondent to sell property and refund mortgage payments within 60 days
  • Respondent to identify tenant and submit proposal for refund within 14 days
  • Applicant to execute documents for sale or leasing within 7 days
  • Applicant to dispose of property if Respondent fails to comply
  • Respondent to remove caution within 7 days
  • Land Registrar to remove restriction if Respondent fails to comply

Remedies

  • Refund of mortgage payments and rent
  • Execution of documents for sale or leasing
  • Disposal of property if necessary

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Article 159 of the Constitution
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
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