Tnm v Sn Riechi, J

2. 2. Whether an Order should issue declaring that 95% or such other or higher proportion of the properties aforesaid, is held by the Defendant in trust and for the beneficial interest of the Plaintiff? 3. Whether the said properties should be sold and the net proceeds be shared between the Plaintiff and the Defendant or in terms of monetary contribution. 4. Whether motor vehicle registration number KBM xxx G bought by the Plaintiff registered in the name of the Defendant purely on trust can be returned to the Plaintiff. 5. Whether the Deputy Registrar ought to be empowered to sign any documents that the Defendant may refuse to sign. 6. Whether the Defendant should be condemned to pay the costs of this Summons? The Plaintiff Tabitha testified that during the subsistence of the marriage they acquired the following properties; 1. Kajiado/Kitengela/5xxxx. The Property is registered in the name of the defendant/respondent. She testified that it was acquired at a purchase price of Ksh.250,000/-. She testified that she allowed the Respondent to be a signatory to her account, and that the funds for payment was from the account. She stated that the Defendant did not make any direct financial contributions and only participated in undertaking the purchase and registration process. She produced bank statements to show withdrawal of the said sum from her account by the Defendant. 2. Kajiado/Kaputiei North/223 The Plaintiff testified that the property is registered in the joint names of her and the defendant. The property was acquired for Ksh. 3.1 million and that she paid for the same 100% as the defendant had declined to pay his 50% as agreed. 3. Safaricom shares: The shares are in the names of defendant. Plaintiff testified that she is the one who provided the money for its purchase. 4. Motor vehicle Reg. No. KBM 730G. 3. The Plaintiff testified that the motor vehicle is registered in names of the defendant but that she is the one who paid for it. She stated that she bought it at USD 4,100. 4. The Defendant Harold Sebuye testified that they married in 2006. During the subsistence of the marriage they jointly started a business known for call termination called internet Technical Services. In the business they could receive calls from U. S. for Kenyan Clients and enable the Kenyan clients to communicate. On weekly basis there were bills to be paid and it is Plaintiff who used to claim the money and send back to him. He was managing businesses in Kenya. Besides the business they acquired the following properties: Kajiado/Kaputiei/10xxxx. The Plot was purchased in 2014 at a cost of Ksh.3.1 million. He testified that the Plaintiff contributed 70 – 80% of the purchase price. He contributed 20-30% being his efforts in indirectly in supervision and processing of the title deeds. 1. Kajiado/Kitengela/5xxxx https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/17643/eng@2025-10-03 2

page 2 of 5

The defendant testified that this property is in his name. The plot was bought from proceeds of the business. In the same transaction they bought another plot Kajiado Kitengela/No. unknown which he registered in her name. They bought the property from Vision Housing Co-operative Society. Safaricom shares: He testified that they bought shares worth Ksh.50,000/2. Motor vehicle Reg. No. KBM 730G: The defendant testified that the motor vehcle is registered in his name and he paid for it wholly. He testified that on her instructions. he had sold her service for Ksh400,000/- which was banked in her account. From the evidence by the parties and their pleadings, it is not contested that the parties were married and their marriage was dissolved on 7th July 2017 and decree absolute issued. There is also no contestation that the subject property were acquired during the subsistence of the marriage. The only issue for determination is the division of the property on this, the supreme 3. Kajiado Kitengela 5xxxx This Property is registered in the name of the respondent. The Applicant testified that although it is registered in the name of the Respondent, she is the one who acquired it at the purchase price of Ksh.250,000. She contributed 100% towards the acquisition. The Respondent testified that the purchase price was paid from a business they held together. They also bought a plot in Kitengela which was taken by the Applicant. The Applicant in her evidence testified that she stays in America and that the Respondent was the one managing her affairs in Kenya. She testified she paid for this parcel of land from funds accessed by the Respondent. She filed documents of the withdrawal from her account by the Respondent. She testified that the contribution of the Respondent in the acquisition of the property was indirect and limited to follow up and identification of the plot, making payments and generally taking charge of the transfer process. While the Applicant urges the court to award her 100%, I note she concedes the Respondent did make indirect contribution. Considering all the evidence, I divide the property as follows: TNM 80% HS 20% 4. Kajiado Kapiutiei North 10xxxx This Property is registered in the joint names. It was acquired on 28th January 2014 at the purchase price of Ksh.3.1 million. The Applicant testified that the funds for the purchase was accessed from her CDA account the respondent confirmed that he withdrew funds from the Applicant's Account as follows; 12.1.2024 - 600,000 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/17643/eng@2025-10-03 3

page 3 of 5

- 600,000 21.3.2014 - 800,000 12.5.2014 - 400,000 26.5.2014 - 540,000 30.5.2014 - 160,000 The Respondent stated that his only contribution to the property was direct financial contribution of Kenya shilling 200,000 and indirect contributions of following up the process of the purchase. The property is registered in the joint names of the parties. The Respondent has stated that he paid contribution of Kenya shilling 200,000 and a a further payment of Kenya shilling 172,000. It is therefore evident that he made other direct financial contribution and indirect contribution to the acquisition of the property. considering the evidence, I divide the property as follows: TNM - Applicant - 60% HS - Respondent - 40% Safaricom Shares The Plaintiff testified that she gave the defendant authority to withdraw funds from her Account. It is from those funds that the Respondent bought the shares. The respondent in his evidence testified shares are in his name and he bought the shares at Ksh.500,000. His contribution is Ksh.50,000 and the Applicant contribution is Ksh50,000. The respondent stated that although the shares are in his name, he concedes that both contributed to the purchase. I am satisfied that the shares belong to both the applicant and respondent. I divide the safaricom shares as follows; TNM 50% HS 50% 4. Motor Vehicle Reg number KBS 965 L This Motor Vehicle was registered in the name of the Respondent. The same was sold in September 2014 for Kenya shilling 400,000 as a write off after being involved in a traffic accident. respondent was paid first installment of Kenya shilling 300,000 of which he deposited Kenya shilling 270,000. As at date of filing this suit this Motor Vehicle had been sold and therefore does not exist. I therefore make no finding on the division of the motor vehicle or proceeds thereof. 5. 1. Taita Taveta property This is a rural home of the Respondent. Plaintiff submits that she built the house which was the matrimonial home. The respondent in his evidence testified that the house was built by him before they married. Plaintiff in her evidence has not adduced evidence that the house was constructed after https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/17643/eng@2025-10-03 4

page 4 of 5

their marriage and not before as the Respondent testified. I therefore find that this is not Matrimonial Property and is not available for distribution. 1. The Respondent in his Replying Affidavit and Response stated that there were housing apartments in Kasarani. He testified that the applicant had bought the property before they married and had developed it at 25%. He asserts that he developed the 75% during the subsistence of the marriage. This property having been acquired before the marriage and no evidence adduced by the Respondent on his contribution to its development, I find this is not Matrimonial Property and is not available for distribution. 2. In the result after considering all the evidence the Matrimonial property is divided as follows: 1. 2. 3. Plot No. KJD/Kitengela/5xxxx a. TNM 80% b. HS 20% Plot No. Kajiado/Kaputiei North/10xxxx a. TNM 60% b. HS 40% Safaricom Shares a) TNM 50% b) HS 50% DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 S. N. RIECHI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/17643/eng@2025-10-03 5

page 5 of 5