Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Supreme CourtPartially AllowedPetition 9 of 2021

MNK v POM & another

Supreme Court of Kenya
27 January 2023
Philomena Mbete MwiluP M MwiluSmokin Charles WanjalaS C WanjalaNjoki Susanna NdunguNjoki NdunguIsaac LenaolaI LenaolaWilliam OukoW Ouko
10,086 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya LawDownload the judgment (PDF) Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~40 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Cohabiting couples can claim property shares even without a recognized marriage.

What this practically means

#

The Supreme Court ruled that a woman who lived with a man for over 20 years could not be presumed married because she was already married to someone else. However, because both contributed to buying and developing their home, the court gave her 70% ownership and the man 30%. This shows that cohabiting partners can get property rights based on their financial contributions, even if no legal marriage exists.

Executive summary

#
This appeal arose from a dispute over property rights between a man and a woman who had cohabited for over 20 years. The respondent claimed the appellant was his wife by presumption and sought division of the suit property under the Married Women's Property Act (repealed). The High Court dismissed the claim, finding the appellant was already married to another man and lacked capacity to marry the respondent. The Court of Appeal reversed, presuming a marriage and ordering equal division of the property. The Supreme Court granted leave on certification that the matter raised issues of general public importance. The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal. It held that while parties to cohabitation unions could file proceedings under the MWPA (repealed), the critical question was whether a marriage existed. The court found the appellant had proved her prior marriage to KM, thus lacked capacity to marry the respondent, and the respondent failed to rebut this evidence. The court declared the doctrine of presumption of marriage is on its deathbed and should be used sparingly. However, the court recognized that the parties had jointly contributed to the acquisition and development of the property over many years, giving rise to a constructive trust based on common intention. The court quantified the beneficial interests as 70% for the appellant and 30% for the respondent, varying the Court of Appeal's 50:50 division. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs. The court also called for legislative action to protect cohabiting couples' property rights.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether parties to a union arising out of cohabitation and/or in a marriage unrecognized by law can file proceedings under the Married Women's Property Act (repealed)? And if so, upon what basis would this be done?
  2. 2.What relief is available to the present parties?

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether parties to a union arising out of cohabitation and/or in a marriage unrecognized by law can file proceedings under the Married Women's Property Act (repealed)?

Holding

Yes, such parties could file proceedings under the MWPA (repealed) because the Act does not distinguish between marriages recognized or unrecognized in law; it applies to all marriages.

Reasoning

The court examined section 17 of the MWPA (repealed) which refers to 'husband and wife' and 'married women' without specifying how the marriage was contracted. The court concluded that the Act applies to all marriages, recognized or unrecognized in law. However, the critical question in this case was whether the parties were actually married. The court found that the appellant lacked capacity to marry the respondent because she was already married to KM, and the respondent failed to prove a presumption of marriage.

p. 12
02

What relief is available to the present parties?

Holding

The respondent is entitled to a 30% beneficial interest in the suit property based on a constructive trust arising from the parties' common intention and joint contributions, despite the absence of a marriage.

Reasoning

The court found that although no marriage could be presumed, the parties had cohabited for over 20 years and jointly contributed to the acquisition and development of the suit property. The court applied the doctrine of constructive trust, finding that the common intention of the parties at the time of purchase gave rise to a beneficial interest for both. The court quantified the shares as 70% for the appellant and 30% for the respondent based on their respective contributions, rejecting the Court of Appeal's 50:50 division as unsupported by evidence.

p. 22

Legal principles established

#
  • Parties in cohabitation unions can use the Married Women's Property Act to claim property, even if the marriage is not legally recognized.
  • The presumption of marriage is rarely applied now and requires strong evidence of capacity, intent, consent, and public portrayal as a couple.
  • A person already married to someone else lacks capacity to enter a new marriage, so no presumption of marriage can arise.
  • When cohabiting partners jointly contribute to property, a constructive trust can give each a beneficial share based on their contributions.
  • Courts can quantify property shares using evidence of each party's financial input, not just equal division.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal dated August 12, 2021 partially succeeds.
  2. 2.A presumption of marriage between the appellant and the respondent does not exist.
  3. 3.Both parties having a beneficial interest in the property, the share is 70% for the appellant and 30% for the respondent.
  4. 4.Each party to bear their own costs.

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

Philomena Mbete Mwilu
P M MwiluDCJ
Currently serving
majority
Smokin Charles Wanjala
S C WanjalaSCJ
Currently serving
majority
Njoki Susanna Ndungu
Njoki NdunguSCJ
Currently serving
majority
Isaac Lenaola
I LenaolaSCJ
Currently serving
majority
William Ouko
W OukoSCJ
Currently serving
majority
On appeal from
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Civil Appeal No 343 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution

Relief refused

#

Declaration that the common law doctrine of presumption of marriage has no application in Kenya

The court did not grant this declaration; instead it held the doctrine is on its deathbed and should be used sparingly.

p. 17

Setting aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal in its entirety and upholding the High Court judgment

The appeal partially succeeded; the Court of Appeal's finding on presumption of marriage was set aside but its finding on proprietary rights was varied, not wholly set aside.

p. 23

Costs

Each party to bear their own costs.

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

The appeal dated August 12, 2021 partially succeeds.
p. 23 Outcome of the appeal
A presumption of marriage between the appellant and the respondent does not exist.
p. 23 Presumption of marriage
Both parties having a beneficial interest in the property, the share is 70% for the appellant and 30% for the respondent.
p. 23 Division of property
Each party to bear their own costs.
p. 23 Costs order
the doctrine of presumption of marriage is on its deathbed of which reasoning is reinforced by the changes to the matrimonial laws in Kenya
p. 17 Status of presumption of marriage
parties to a union arising out of cohabitation and/or in a marriage unrecognized by law could file proceedings under the MWPA (repealed) upon the basis that the MWPA (repealed) does not distinguish between marriages recognized or unrecognized in law
p. 12 Locus standi under MWPA
common intention of the parties at the time of purchase of the suit property gave rise to a constructive trust between the appellant and the respondent
p. 22 Constructive trust

Key timeline

#
Unknown
Parties began cohabiting for over 20 years.
Unknown
Respondent filed property claim under Married Women's Property Act.
Unknown
High Court dismissed claim, finding appellant already married.
Unknown
Court of Appeal reversed, presumed marriage, ordered 50:50 property split.
2023-01-01
Supreme Court partially allowed appeal, no presumption of marriage, but awarded 70:30 property shares.

Practical implications

#
For lawyers

Use MWPA for cohabitation claims

When representing clients in cohabitation disputes, cite this case to argue that the Married Women's Property Act (repealed) applies even without a recognized marriage. Focus on proving each party's financial contributions to property acquisition and development, as the court will quantify shares based on evidence, not assume equal division.

For businesses

Property rights for cohabiting staff

If your business provides housing or property benefits to employees in cohabiting relationships, be aware that partners may claim ownership shares based on contributions. Update policies to clarify ownership terms in writing, and advise employees to document financial inputs to avoid disputes.

For individuals

Protect your property in cohabitation

If you live with a partner without marriage, keep records of all money you put into buying or improving shared property. This case shows you can get a share even without a marriage certificate, but you must prove your contributions. Consider a written agreement to avoid court battles later.

Frequently asked questions

#
Can I claim property in Kenya if I cohabited but never married?+

Yes, the Supreme Court in MNK v POM (2023) ruled that cohabiting partners can claim property shares under the Married Women's Property Act, even without a legal marriage. You must prove your financial contributions to the property.

What is the presumption of marriage in Kenya?+

It is a legal assumption that a couple is married if they live together and present themselves as married. The Supreme Court now says this doctrine is rarely used and requires strong evidence of capacity, intent, and public portrayal.

How does a constructive trust work in Kenyan property disputes?+

A constructive trust arises when cohabiting partners jointly contribute to property, creating a shared ownership based on common intention. The court divides shares according to each person's financial input, as seen in MNK v POM.

What happens if one partner was already married in Kenya?+

If one partner is already legally married, they lack capacity to enter another marriage. No presumption of marriage can arise, but they can still claim property shares based on contributions, as the Supreme Court decided in this case.

Later judgments citing this (12)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "MNK v POM & another", Case Analysis (2023). Petition 9 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2023/2/eng@2023-01-27

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.