Karanu v Karanu [1988] KECA 95 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a husband who hides his income cannot complain that maintenance payments are too high.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the award exceeded the statutory one-fifth limit
The appellant's complaint that the award infringed the one-fifth rule could not be entertained because he failed to file the affidavit of full particulars of property and income required by Rule 44(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules and instead concealed his true worth.
Rule 44(1) obliges a husband served with a petition claiming alimony pending suit to file an affidavit setting out full particulars of his property and income within fourteen days. The appellant filed only a replying affidavit opposing the wife's averments, concealing his real worth. Having breached the rule, he could not found an argument for relief on his own breach of statutory duty. The court therefore fixed quantum on the evidence available, including the wife's detailed particulars showing an estimated monthly income of about Kshs 100,000, one-fifth of which far exceeded the award.
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial judge's discretion on quantum
The discretion would not be disturbed: the award of Kshs 8,000 per month total was neither unreasonable nor indiscreet nor clearly wrong given the husband's income and affluent circumstances.
The husband had income-yielding assets including a dairy farm, a uniform shop, a let residential house in Thika, flats in Nakuru and a quarry. The wife's estimated monthly income figure of about Kshs 100,000 was not unreasonable, making the award slightly parsimonious rather than excessive. The wife's own modest income of Kshs 3,772 per month from nursing and rent bore little relation to the husband's income, and since she resumed work only because of the marriage breakdown, it should not enure to the husband's benefit.
Whether the wife's earnings should reduce the maintenance award
The wife's income from employment taken up in consequence of the marriage disruption should not be brought into account to the husband's benefit.
Following Ward v Ward and J v J, where a wife takes up employment because the husband disrupted the marriage, her earnings are particularly not to be offset against maintenance. The respondent resigned from nursing at her husband's insistence during the marriage and only resumed work after separation when she was living on charity. Had she remained with her well-to-do husband she would not have needed to work, so the husband could not make a fetish of her pittance of a salary.
Legal principles established
#- A husband seeking to invoke the one-fifth rule under section 25(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act must first make full and frank disclosure of his property and income under Rule 44 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules; without such disclosure he cannot challenge the quantum of alimony on the ground that it exceeds one-fifth of his income.
- A party cannot rely on his own breach of statutory duty as a ground for relief on appeal.
- Where a wife takes up employment in consequence of the disruption of the marriage by the husband, her earnings need not ordinarily be brought into account so as to benefit the husband in fixing maintenance.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal to the respondent (wife)
- On appeal from
- High Court at Nairobi
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal against an order of the High Court (specific provision not stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karanu v Karanu [1988] KECA 95 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1988). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1988/95/eng@1988-11-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.