Jmn v Gha

iii. Plot Numbers 31/11/69 and 31/11/70 on LR 31/11 located in Ruaraka within Nairobi County; 4. The Applicant is a qualified Civil Engineer who asserts that he functioned as the primary project manager, architectural supervisor, and ground operative for the family's real estate developments. Conversely, the Respondent is a Finance Specialist operating within the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) sector who worked exclusively as an expatriate in South Sudan and Sudan between 2017 and 2023. The Respondent asserts that she remitted the entirety of her foreign earnings to fund the family's real estate portfolio, positioning herself as the sole financial engine of the marital acquisitions. 5. The Applicant sought a raft of orders, primary among them being: 6. i. A formal declaration that the listed properties (Apartment No. G10-03, Block G, Clay City; House No. 12, Block C2, Kibera Soweto East; Plot No. 31/11/69, Ruaraka; and Plot No. 31/11/70, Ruaraka) are owned jointly by the Applicant and the Respondent as matrimonial properties. ii. The upholding of his proprietary rights over property he asserts was solely acquired by him (Plot No. 31/11/70). iii. The division of the jointly acquired properties based on the presumption of equality and respective direct and indirect contributions. iv. Orders granting him immediate access to the matrimonial home at Clay City, with the assistance of the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Kasarani Police Station, to retrieve his personal belongings, furniture, and professional documents, following an alleged unlawful lockout by the Respondent. v. Financial compensation for any lost or damaged personal items, and an order of injunction restraining the Respondent from alienating or disposing of the suit properties. In response, the Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit dated 26 June 2023, accompanied by an Originating Summons functioning as a Counterclaim, dated 11 December 2023. The Respondent vehemently opposed the Applicant's prayers, seeking an alternative distribution matrix. She prayed that the Court distribute the properties strictly according to proven financial contribution, proposing that the Applicant retain Plot No. 31/11/70, while she retains Plot No. 31/11/69, the Clay City apartment, and the Kibera Soweto house in their entirety. Furthermore, the Respondent sought an order for the rendition of accounts, claiming the Applicant had unlawfully withheld rental income totalling Kshs 15,074,500/= since 2016. She additionally prayed for a declaration of spousal liability, seeking to compel the Applicant to bear 50% of outstanding loans amounting to Kshs 1,158,079.50 incurred during the marriage. The Applicant’s Case 7. The Applicant testified as PW1. He informed the Court that he holds a degree in Civil Engineering. His testimony painted a picture of a spouse who dedicated his professional expertise and personal savings to the growth of the family's asset base. 8. PW1 testified that he is currently without a permanent residence and is forced to reside in an Airbnb, suffering significant mental and economic anguish because the Respondent unlawfully changed the locks to their matrimonial home (the Clay City apartment) on 31 March 2023, while he was away on https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4108/eng@2026-03-30 2

page 2 of 11

official duty. This lockout, he testified, denied him access to his professional documents and personal effects, severely impeding his ability to earn a livelihood. 9. Regarding the Clay City apartment, PW1 testified that it was acquired jointly in March 2021, though the formal lease documents were obtained on 8 December 2021. He averred that the total purchase price was Kshs 8 million. He testified that he paid the initial deposit of Kshs 2 million using his personal savings and business income, and that the remaining Kshs 6 million was financed through a joint running facility. He conceded that the facility, which stood at approximately Kshs 6.1 million, was domiciled in the Respondent's name, but insisted he made continuous contributions to its servicing via mobile money (M-Pesa) transfers. 10. On Plot No. 31/11/69 (Lucky Summer), PW1 stated that the bare land was purchased in March 2012 for Kshs 570,000/=, prior to their marriage, but registered in their joint names. He testified that the construction of the five-story building commenced in August 2014 and ended in July 2019. PW1 testified that he utilized Kshs 9 million of his personal savings, alongside three loans from Kimisitu Sacco totalling Kshs 3.6 million and a Kshs 6 million loan from ABSA Bank, to finance the construction. Beyond financial input, PW1 asserted his non-monetary contribution was massive: he acted as the engineer in charge, overseeing the initiation, construction, and development from start to finish without drawing a professional salary, while the Respondent was stationed abroad. 11. Regarding Plot No. 31/11/70 (Lucky Summer), PW1 testified that he is the sole purchaser and developer. He stated he paid the seller Kshs 180,000/= from his ABSA account, followed by a Kshs 350,000/= cash payment and a Kshs 50,000/= Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) transfer on 9 September 2015. He presented a list of documents referencing Cooperative Bank Limited statements to prove he managed the rental income from this property independently. During cross-examination, however, PW1 conceded that the Respondent had taken out a loan to cover a default on this property, acknowledging an email wherein he requested the loan be transferred to her name. 12. On the Kibera property, PW1 admitted he did not directly purchase it but asserted he contributed by running errands for the Respondent. He further claimed to have made other substantial financial contributions to the extended family, including a Kshs 7 million perimeter fence and renovations at the Respondent's mother's house in Rongai. The Respondent’s Case 13. The Respondent testified as DW1. She identified herself as a Finance Specialist working within the NGO sector. Her testimony established that her career necessitated extensive expatriate deployment; from 2017 to 2023, she lived and worked outside the country, predominantly in South Sudan and Sudan. 14. DW1's core defence rested on the assertion of absolute financial superiority in the acquisition of the marital assets. She testified that she contributed immensely to the purchase and construction of the properties by dedicating her finances for 13 years to the full benefit and prosperity of the family. She testified that during her expatriate deployment, she remitted her full monthly salary to the Applicant to fund the construction projects and service loans. She stated that she took numerous loans from Kimisitu Sacco and the Bank of Africa to finance the developments. 15. Regarding Plot No. 31/11/69, DW1 argued that she contributed 100% of the resources for its acquisition and development. She contended that the Applicant was unemployed between 2017 and 2018, specifically during the critical finishing stages of the construction, and thus had no identifiable means of income to participate financially. She argued that the Applicant's name was included on the title deed solely on the basis of their marital union, not due to financial participation. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4108/eng@2026-03-30 3

page 3 of 11

16. On Plot No. 31/11/70, DW1 disputed the Applicant's claim of sole ownership. She provided evidence that the property was developed mostly from her salary. She testified that in 2017, when the Applicant was defaulting on payments for this specific plot, she secured a loan of Kshs 766,000/= from Kimisitu Sacco and paid the seller directly to salvage the asset. 17. Regarding the Clay City apartment, DW1 referred to it as her property, acknowledging they lived there for two years but asserting she wrote to the bank to include his name. She admitted to changing the locks in 2023 but claimed the Applicant had the ability to enter if he wanted. 18. On the Kibera Soweto property, DW1 testified that this was a private transaction between herself and a friend who owed her money. She stated that the Applicant was not involved, his name does not appear on the Sale Agreement, and he was entirely unaware of the transaction until later. 19. DW1 heavily contested the Applicant's management of the properties. She averred that the Applicant had been collecting rent from the Lucky Summer properties but had failed to remit or account for the same. She produced rental account statements indicating that Plot No. 31/11/69 generates Kshs 181,500/= monthly (Kshs 2,178,000/= annually) when fully occupied, and Plot No. 31/11/70 generates Kshs 277,000/= monthly. Based on these figures, she advanced a claim that the Applicant had withheld Kshs 15,074,500/= in rental income since 2016. Furthermore, DW1 highlighted outstanding marital liabilities, specifically a Kshs 326,713.50 loan attached to the Kibera property and a Kshs 831,366.00 loan attached to the Clay City property, praying that the Applicant be condemned to shoulder half of this burden. Analysis & Determination 20. Upon evaluation of the pleadings, testimonies and evidence, the Court isolates the following central issues for determination: i. Whether the contested properties (Clay City Apartment, Plot No. 31/11/69, Plot No. 31/11/70, and Kibera House No. 12) fall within the legal ambit of matrimonial property. ii. What are the respective contributions (monetary and non-monetary) made by each spouse, and what is the equitable ratio of distribution for each property? iii. How should the outstanding spousal liabilities be apportioned? iv. Whether the Respondent's claim for the rendition of accounts and recovery of Kshs 15,074,500/= in rental income is merited. v. Whether the Applicant was subjected to unlawful eviction, and the appropriate remedies thereof. 21. The adjudication of matrimonial property disputes in Kenya has undergone a profound metamorphosis over the last two decades. Section 2 of the Matrimonial Property Act fundamentally redefines contribution to mean both monetary and non-monetary input, explicitly including: (a) domestic work and management of the matrimonial home; (b) child care; (c) companionship; (d) management of family business or property; and (e) farm work. 22. However, before quantifying contributions, the Court must ascertain whether the suit properties fall within the legal definition of matrimonial property. Section 6 of the Matrimonial Property Act defines matrimonial property to include the matrimonial home, household goods and effects, and any other immovable and movable property jointly owned and acquired during the subsistence of the marriage. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4108/eng@2026-03-30 4

page 4 of 11

23. With respect to Apartment Number G10-03, Block G, Clay City (LR No. 57/2229), the property was acquired in 2021, squarely during the subsistence of the marriage. It is registered jointly in the names of both the Applicant and the Respondent, and it is undisputed that the parties occupied it as their primary family residence. Under Section 2 of the Act, a matrimonial home means any property that is owned or leased by one or both spouses and occupied or utilized by the spouses as their family home. The Clay City apartment is indisputably the matrimonial home and thereby constitutes matrimonial property. 24. With respect to Plot No. 31/11/69, Lucky Summer, the timeline of this asset presents a legal nuance. The bare land was acquired in March 2012 for Kshs 570,000/=, which predates the formal solemnization of the marriage in February 2014. Section 5 of the Act generally stipulates that property acquired prior to marriage remains separate property. However, this general rule is subjugated by section 9 of the Act, which dictates that where one spouse contributes to the improvement of the other's separate property, that spouse acquires a beneficial interest. More pertinently, the property was acquired in the joint names of the parties from the outset, indicating a pre-marital intention to hold the asset jointly. Furthermore, the massive transformation of this bare plot into a Kshs 28 million fivestory residential complex occurred entirely during the subsistence of the marriage (between August 2014 and July 2019). As noted in recent jurisprudence such as Godwilly v Manochi KEHC 7102 (KLR), the joint development of property during cohabitation or marriage firmly stamps it with a matrimonial character. The Court finds that the extensive structural development during coverture irrevocably categorizes Plot 69 as matrimonial property. 25. Plot No. 31/11/70, Lucky Summer was acquired in September 2015, during the marriage. It is registered solely in the Applicant's name. The Applicant has argued that this should secure his sole proprietary rights. This argument is legally fallacious under the current regime. As established in NKC v EWK KEHC 10440 (KLR), the mere fact that a property acquired during marriage is registered in the name of one spouse does not extinguish the non-registered spouse's claim, provided they can demonstrate contribution. The Respondent has provided evidence of financial intervention in this property. Accordingly, Plot 70 is deemed matrimonial property. 26. Regarding House No. 12, Block C2, Kibera Soweto East, the Respondent testified she acquired this property during the marriage from a friend to settle a debt, doing so without the Applicant's knowledge. Secrecy in acquisition during coverture does not shield an asset from the Matrimonial Property Act. Assets acquired during the marriage, utilizing funds or resources generated during the marriage, form part of the marital estate. The Kibera property is hereby classified as matrimonial property. Evaluation of Contribution and Determination of Beneflcial Interests 27. Having established the matrimonial character of the properties, the Court now turns to the complex task of quantifying the respective contributions of the parties to apportion the beneficial interests pursuant to section 7 of the Act. The Court is mindful of the observation in RND v RSA [2022] KEHC 13745 (KLR) regarding the obscuring effect of anger and betrayal on the objectivity of divorcing parties when assessing each other's contributions. The Court must, therefore, rely strictly on the evidentiary record. A. The Clay City Matrimonial Home 28. The Clay City apartment holds a market valuation of Kshs 7.5 million. It was acquired jointly in 2021. The Applicant asserts he paid the Kshs 2 million deposit from savings, while a joint facility of Kshs https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4108/eng@2026-03-30 5

page 5 of 11

6.1 million was taken. The Respondent counters that the facility was entirely in her name and serviced by her. 29. The Court is guided by section 14(b) of the Matrimonial Property Act, which stipulates that where matrimonial property is acquired during marriage in the joint names of the spouses, there is a rebuttable presumption that their beneficial interests in the matrimonial property are equal. As interpreted in MWN v TIM (Civil Suit 33 of 2017) [2022] eKLR, the burden lies on the party seeking to disturb this presumption to provide compelling evidence to the contrary. 30. The Respondent has not discharged this burden. The fact that a mortgage facility is domiciled in one spouse's name—often a result of credit-rating logistics or employment terms—does not nullify the joint intention evidenced by the title deed and shared occupation. The Applicant provided evidence of M-Pesa contributions, and both parties lived in the property. Consequently, the presumption of equal sharing stands. 31. The beneficial interest is, therefore, apportioned 50% to the Applicant and 50% to the Respondent. B. Plot No. 31/11/69 (Lucky Summer) 32. This property, valued at Kshs 28 million, represents the epicentre of this dispute. It is here that the competing paradigms of monetary versus non-monetary contribution clash directly. 33. The Respondent claims 100% financial contribution. She asserts she financed the construction entirely through her expatriate salary remitted from South Sudan and Sudan, bolstered by personal loans from Kimisitu Sacco and Bank of Africa. She contends the Applicant was unemployed between 2017 and 2018 and contributed nothing. 34. The Applicant claims he injected Kshs 9 million of personal savings and loans (Kimisitu and ABSA) into the project. More critically, he relies on his non-monetary contribution. As a Civil Engineer, he testified that he was the engineer in charge, physically present on the ground, overseeing the initiation, construction, and overall development of the five-storey structure from 2014 to 2019. 35. The Court finds that the evidence points to a synergistic, albeit unequal, partnership. The Respondent's claim of absolute 100% financial contribution is logistically improbable given her absence from the country. Constructing a multi-storey residential block in Nairobi while residing in South Sudan requires a trusted, competent proxy on the ground. The Applicant fulfilled this role. 36. The Court must evaluate the Applicant's engineering and project management services. In the commercial real estate sector, professional services encompassing architectural design, structural engineering, procurement, and daily site supervision command substantial fees, often calculated at 10% to 15% of the total project cost. The Applicant performed these highly technical professional services for the family estate without drawing a salary. 37. Section 2 of the Matrimonial Property Act expressly identifies the management of family business or property as a valid non-monetary contribution. To discount the Applicant's engineering services merely because they did not manifest as direct cash deposits into a bank account would be a grave misdirection of law. As articulated in Joseph Ombogi Ogentoto v. Martha Bosibori Ogentoto (JOO v MBO) KESC 4 (KLR) and expanded upon in AWM v JGK [2021] eKLR, courts must assign tangible, equitable weight to these indirect efforts. The Applicant's sweat equity and professional expertise were indispensable to the realization of the Kshs 28 million asset. 38. However, the Court cannot endorse the Applicant's demand for a 50:50 split. The Respondent undeniably bore the overwhelming primary financial risk. She dedicated over a decade of her foreign https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4108/eng@2026-03-30 6

page 6 of 11

earnings to the family's real estate ambitions, effectively acting as the central bank for these projects. Her massive capital injection must be accorded superior weight in the distribution matrix. 39. Balancing the Applicant's highly valuable professional non-monetary contribution and partial financial input against the Respondent's overwhelming capital financing, the Court determines an equitable distribution ratio that honours both forms of contribution without descending into mathematical rigidities. 40. The beneficial interest is apportioned 30% to the Applicant and 70% to the Respondent. C. Plot No. 31/11/70 (Lucky Summer) 41. Plot 70, currently commanding a market value of Kshs 33 million, is registered solely in the Applicant's name. The evidentiary record regarding this property sharply contrasts with Plot 69. 42. The Applicant provided concrete evidence of direct financial initiation, including an ABSA bank transfer, a Kshs 350,000/= cash payment, and a Kshs 50,000/= RTGS transfer in 2015. 43. The Respondent's claim to a share in this property is anchored on her intervention in 2017. She produced evidence that when the Applicant was defaulting on obligations related to this plot, she took up a loan of Kshs 766,000/= from Kimisitu Sacco to clear the debt. During cross-examination, the Applicant conceded to the existence of an email wherein he requested this loan be transferred to the Respondent. 44. Applying the principles of section 7 of the Act, the Court observes that the Applicant was the primary financial driver and the sole registered owner of Plot 70. However, the Respondent's intervention via the Kshs 766,000/= loan represents a measurable, direct financial contribution that preserved the asset from potential foreclosure or loss. Furthermore, her ongoing financial support of the broader household during her expatriate work indirectly facilitated the Applicant's ability to marshal resources for this property. Applying the maxim that equity is proportionality, the Respondent is entitled to a minority, yet significant, beneficial interest. 45. The beneficial interest is apportioned 75% to the Applicant and 25% to the Respondent. D. House No. 12, Kibera Soweto East 46. The evidence regarding the Kibera property is largely uncontroverted in favor of the Respondent. She testified she acquired the property from a friend to settle a pre-existing debt. The Applicant's name is conspicuously absent from the sale agreement, and he could only mount a weak defence that he contributed by running errands while the Respondent was abroad. 47. The Applicant attempted to introduce evidence that he spent Kshs 7 million erecting a perimeter fence at the Respondent's mother's house in Rongai to justify a larger share of the overall estate. The Court must disregard this. Improvements made to third-party property (the mother-in-law's house) do not establish a proprietary interest in the specific matrimonial assets currently pleaded before this Court. The Respondent's direct financial acquisition of the Kibera property is established. However, acknowledging the marital partnership and the minor non-monetary assistance provided by the Applicant during coverture, a nominal share is appropriate. 48. The beneficial interest is apportioned 10% to the Applicant and 90% to the Respondent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4108/eng@2026-03-30 7

page 7 of 11

Apportionment of Spousal Liabilities 49. The Respondent has raised a substantive defence of spousal liability, seeking orders to compel the Applicant to bear 50% of outstanding loans attached to the matrimonial properties. She has tabled documentary evidence demonstrating an outstanding balance of Kshs 326,713.50 for the Kibera property and Kshs 831,366.00 for the Clay City apartment. The total liability stands at Kshs 1,158,079.50. 50. The legal mechanism for resolving this is found in section 10(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act, which is unequivocal: "Parties to a marriage shall share equally any liability incurred during the subsistence of the marriage for the benefit of the marriage or reasonable and justifiable expense incurred for the benefit of the marriage". 51. The jurisprudence strictly enforces this statutory directive. As observed in recent rulings, liabilities incurred for the acquisition or enhancement of the marital estate must be borne equally, regardless of which spouse's name is appended to the loan document, or who currently occupies the property. The loans in question were demonstrably utilized to develop assets from which both parties are now seeking, and receiving, a proprietary share. It would be entirely unconscionable, and offensive to the tenets of equity, to award the Applicant a share of the assets while saddling the Respondent with the entirety of the debt that financed them. 52. Therefore, the total outstanding liability of Kshs 1,158,079.50 shall be shared equally down the middle. Rendition of Accounts for Rental Income 53. A highly contested facet of the Respondent's counterclaim is her assertion that the Applicant unlawfully collected and retained rental income from the Lucky Summer properties since 2016. She advanced a calculated claim demanding the recovery of Kshs 15,074,500/=. 54. The Court has meticulously scrutinized the documentary evidence provided to substantiate this astronomical figure. The Rental Account Statement submitted by the Respondent for Plot 69 indicates a monthly gross collection of Kshs 181,500/= when fully occupied. The statement explicitly totals the collections for the entire year of 2023 at Kshs 2,178,000/=. Similarly, the documents suggest Plot 70 has a potential monthly collection of Kshs 277,000/=. 55. However, there is an absolute dearth of forensic documentary evidence to substantiate the claim that Kshs 15,074,500/= is currently hoarded by the Applicant. While it is established that the Applicant was the primary manager of the properties and collector of rents during the Respondent's tenure abroad, the nature of a functioning marriage dictates that such funds are routinely re-injected into the ongoing construction of the properties, the servicing of secondary loans, and the general maintenance of the family unit. To demand a retroactive, post-divorce accounting of every shilling collected during a functioning marriage—absent concrete forensic evidence of embezzlement or malicious diversion— runs contrary to the foundational trust of the marital partnership. 56. The legal paradigm shifts, however, at the point of marital dissolution. From January 2023 onwards, as the marriage irrevocably collapsed, the parties transitioned from spouses to co-owners of commercial real estate. From this point forward, any rental income collected by either party from jointly owned properties must be strictly accounted for and distributed in accordance with the ownership ratios determined by this Court. 57. The Court takes judicial notice of its own interim orders issued on 17 September 2024, which mandated the deposit of all rental income into an escrow account managed jointly by the respective https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4108/eng@2026-03-30 8

page 8 of 11

advocates. That escrow account shall serve as the baseline for the reconciliation of post-separation income. The Respondent's prayer for historical arrears of Kshs 15,074,500/= is dismissed for lack of strict proof. Unlawful Eviction from the Matrimonial Home 58. The Applicant averred, and the Respondent expressly admitted during cross-examination, that she changed the locks to the Clay City apartment in March 2023, effectively locking the Applicant out of the matrimonial home while he was away. The Applicant testified that this action forced him into transient accommodation in Airbnbs and denied him access to his professional tools of trade. 59. The Court notes this admission with grave concern. Section 12(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act strictly prohibits the eviction of a spouse from the matrimonial home by the other spouse except by a specific order of the Court. The Respondent's unilateral, extra-judicial action to exclude the Applicant constituted a blatant violation of statutory law. The Applicant is entitled to immediate remedies to cure this illegality, specifically regarding the retrieval of his personal and professional effects. Disposition 60. The division of matrimonial property is not a punitive exercise intended to penalize one spouse or unjustly enrich the other. It is the application of cold, hard equity to the complex emotional and financial tapestry of a dissolved marriage. In JOO v MBO (supra) the Supreme Court has directed that proven contribution—evaluated broadly to include both the checkbook and the sweat of the brow— must be the sole lodestar in this endeavor. 61. In the present case, the Court has carefully weighed the Respondent's formidable financial contributions, earned through years of arduous expatriate labor away from her home, against the Applicant's indispensable professional engineering services, project management, and localized financial inputs. The resulting distribution ratios have been tailored to reflect the specific developmental realities and funding mechanisms of each distinct asset. 62. Accordingly, the Originating Summons dated 16 June 2023 and the Counterclaim dated 11 December 2023 are hereby determined, and the Court issues the following orders: i. It is hereby declared that the Clay City Apartment (G10-03), Plot No. 31/11/69 (Lucky Summer), Plot No. 31/11/70 (Lucky Summer), and House No. 12 (Kibera Soweto East) constitute matrimonial property within the meaning of section 6 of the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013. ii. The aforementioned matrimonial properties shall be distributed, and the beneficial interests vested in the parties, in the following proportions: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4108/eng@2026-03-30 9

page 9 of 11

Property Description Clay Apartment (G10-03) Applicant’s (%) Share Respondent’s Share (%) Estimated (Kshs) City 50% 50% 7,500,000/= Plot No. 31/11/69 (Lucky Summer) 30% 70% 28,000,000/= Plot No. 31/11/70 (Lucky Summer) 75% 25% 33,000,000/= House No. 12, Kibera Soweto East 10% 90% N/A Value iii. The parties are granted a period of 90 days from the date of this Judgment to mutually agree on a buy-out mechanism based on the distribution ratios outlined in Order (ii) above. Should the parties fail to reach an amicable buy-out agreement within this period, the properties shall be listed for sale by public auction or private treaty by a mutually agreed, registered real estate agency. The net proceeds of the sale, after deduction of agency fees and relevant taxes, shall be distributed strictly according to the aforementioned percentages. iv. Pursuant to section 10(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act, the Applicant is hereby ordered to bear fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding spousal liabilities incurred for the benefit of the properties. Liability Description Total Outstanding (Kshs) Applicant’s Burden Respondent’s Burden Kibera Loan Property 326,713.50 163,356.75 163,356.75 Clay City Property Loan 831,366.00 415,683.00 415,683.00 Total 1,158,079.50 579,039.75 579,039.75 v. The Applicant's total liability contribution of Kshs 579,039.75 shall be deducted at source from his share of the property proceeds or buy-out settlement and remitted to the relevant financial institutions or to the Respondent if she has already cleared the same. vi. The escrow account established pursuant to the interim orders of this Court dated 17 September 2024 shall be subjected to an independent audit. All net rental income accrued from January 2023 to the date of execution of this Judgment shall be distributed to the parties in exact accordance with the ownership percentages established in Order (ii). The Respondent's claim for historical arrears of Kshs 15,074,500 is hereby dismissed. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4108/eng@2026-03-30 10

page 10 of 11

vii. The Applicant is granted immediate, unhindered access to the Clay City Apartment (G10-03) for the strict and limited purpose of retrieving his personal belongings, clothing, and professional documents. viii. The Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Kasarani Police Station is hereby directed to provide security escort to the Applicant to facilitate peaceful retrieval. ix. The Deputy Registrar is hereby authorized and directed to execute any transfer documents, discharge of charges, or necessary conveyancing instruments on behalf of either party should they fail, refuse, or neglect to execute the same within fourteen (14) days of being formally called upon to do so by the other party. x. Each party shall bear their own costs for this suit. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 30 DAY OF MARCH 2026 HELENE R. NAMISI JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Delivered on virtual platform in the presence of: For Applicant: N/A For Respondent: Mr Ojienda Court Assistant Lucy Mwangi https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4108/eng@2026-03-30 11

page 11 of 11