Rmg v Family

5. That an order do issue declaring that the Applicant is entitled to 50% or such other sum of any proceeds that may be or may become payable to the Respondent as a result of litigation and appeal arising HCCC No 73 of 2017 (O.S). 6. That the duly executed leases of the [Particulars Withheld] Villas aforesaid and the five acre portion of land to be held by Ngatia & Associates Advocates be so held without registration until the hearing and determination of the suit. 7. That a declaration do issue that all that property known as Githunguri/Githunguri/5x1 registered in the name of the Respondent NG is so held by him on his behalf and in trust for the Applicant. 2. In response to the application the Respondent filed a lengthy affidavit in opposition to the suit. 3. When the matter finally came up for directions the Court ordered the matter to proceed by way of oral evidence. Both parties testified relying on their oral evidence as well as documentary evidence and did not call any witnesses. 4. Before looking at their submissions it is worthy to summaries the evidence as presented. Applicant’s Case 5. PW1, RMG, centered her claim on the averment that the disputed properties were acquired and developed through the joint efforts of the parties during the marriage. She testified that she married the Respondent, NG, on 5th November, 1977 and that the marriage was dissolved in 2014. She adopted her witness statement, supporting affidavits and documents as part of her evidence in chief. 6. The Applicant testified that the parties jointly acquired the 20-acre parcel forming part of L.R. No. 2xxx3/2 in 1992. She explained that the property was initially family land associated with the Respondent’s family, but that when the vendors later decided to sell the land, both she and the Respondent agreed to purchase it for approximately Kshs. 8 million. 7. According to her, they jointly raised funds towards the purchase price through cash payments, company accounts and business proceeds. She stated that the agreement to purchase the land was made during the subsistence of the marriage and that she personally contributed towards the acquisition. 8. The Applicant further testified that she participated extensively in the farming and development of the suit property. She stated that she managed horticultural and farming activities on the land and oversaw the installation of irrigation systems and other improvements. 9. She maintained that after leaving formal employment she devoted significant time to the development and maintenance of the property and that the land became both a family residence and an incomegenerating venture. 10. According to her, she contributed not only financially but also through labour, management and supervision of the projects undertaken on the land. 11. With regard to the parties’ companies, the Applicant stated that [Particulars Withheld] Enterprises Limited was jointly established by the parties and that she was the majority shareholder holding approximately 80% of the shares. She explained that the company name was derived from the names of their children and that both parties served as directors. 12. According to her, funds from [Particulars Withheld] Enterprises Limited, [Particulars Withheld] Company and other family businesses were utilized in purchasing and developing the suit properties. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7545/eng@2026-06-04 2

page 2 of 11

She denied the Respondent’s assertions that he solely owned the businesses or exclusively funded the acquisitions. 13. The Applicant also narrated how the parties later entered into arrangements with Suraya Property Group Limited for the development of villas on the land. She stated that although the Respondent subsequently excluded her from aspects of the transaction, the project had initially been undertaken for their joint benefit. 14. She testified that the development later stalled, the villas remained incomplete and disputes arose between the parties and the developers. According to her, she continued to participate in preservation and renovation efforts even after the relationship between the parties deteriorated. 15. She further testified that after the arbitral proceedings and Court cases involving the developers, the Respondent was awarded 16 villas, 5 acres and monetary compensation. However, she maintained that those awards were connected to matrimonial property acquired and developed during the marriage and therefore she was entitled to a share thereof. She asserted that she had participated in the proceedings, attended meetings, interacted with contractors and helped preserve the developments pending completion of the disputes. 16. The Applicant additionally stated that she currently occupied one of the villas while the Respondent occupied others. She explained that some villas had been vandalized or remained unfinished, prompting her to undertake repairs and renovations. She stated that she sourced contractors, supervised construction works and incurred expenses in preserving the units. According to her, these actions demonstrated her continued interest and contribution towards the property. 17. During her testimony, the Applicant emphasized that the Respondent had often involved her in negotiations and decision-making regarding the suit property and related developments. She asserted that the parties had jointly discussed the acquisition of the land, the financing arrangements and the subsequent development projects. She maintained that the Respondent could not later deny her contribution after involving her in the businesses, farming ventures and property transactions throughout the marriage. 18. The Applicant also addressed the issue of non-monetary contribution. She testified that while employed at [Particulars Withheld] she still participated actively in family affairs, raised the children, managed the household and contributed to the welfare of the family. She stated that she balanced employment with family responsibilities and that her income and labour substantially supported acquisition and development of the matrimonial assets. 19. In conclusion, the Applicant maintained that the disputed properties, including the 16 villas, the 5-acre portion, Githunguri/Githunguri/5x1 and related proceeds from litigation and arbitration, constituted matrimonial property acquired and developed through the joint efforts of the parties during the marriage. She therefore urged the Court to recognize her beneficial interest and award her an equal or substantial share of the properties. Respondent’s Case 20. DW1, NG, testified in opposition to the Applicant’s claim for division of matrimonial property and adopted his replying affidavit together with the annexed documents as part of his evidence in chief. He gave a detailed account of his educational background, professional history and business ventures in order to demonstrate that he had independently acquired wealth and property long before and during the marriage to the Applicant. He testified that after university he obtained gainful employment, https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7545/eng@2026-06-04 3

page 3 of 11

ventured into real estate through Property People Limited and pursued journalism, publishing and farming activities which generated substantial income over the years. 21. The Respondent stated that he acquired Githunguri/Githunguri/5x1 through his own efforts and family arrangements before the marriage. According to him, the land had originally been associated with his family and was allocated to him for coffee farming purposes after graduation. He testified that he personally developed the property and used it for coffee farming long before marrying the Applicant. He therefore maintained that the Applicant made no contribution towards either its acquisition or development. 22. With respect to the 20-acre parcel forming part of L.R. No. 2xxx3/2, the Respondent testified that the land was purchased from his brother, G, using his own resources and business income. He stated that although the Applicant later attempted to associate herself with the acquisition, she neither participated in negotiations nor contributed substantially to the purchase price. He maintained that the property was acquired through funds generated from his businesses and companies which he solely controlled. 23. The Respondent disputed the Applicant’s assertion that she made significant financial contributions through [Particulars Withheld] Enterprises Limited and other family companies. He testified that although the Applicant may have appeared in company registration documents, she was not actively involved in management or decision-making and did not authorize company payments. 24. He further alleged that the Applicant fabricated or manipulated company records in order to create the impression that she contributed to the acquisition of the suit properties. According to him, the companies relied upon by the Applicant were effectively controlled and financed by him. 25. The Respondent also testified that the Applicant’s contribution to family affairs and household management was minimal. He explained that the Applicant worked at [Particulars Withheld] and travelled frequently, leaving him with greater responsibility in raising the children and managing family affairs. He stated that despite her employment, the Applicant did not substantially support the household financially and that he personally catered for the family’s needs, school fees and maintenance expenses. 26. He further accused the Applicant of repeatedly deserting the matrimonial home and interfering with his business affairs. According to him, the Applicant relocated abroad for several years and later returned only to institute litigation over matrimonial property. He described her conduct as calculated and opportunistic, asserting that her claims were intended to unjustly benefit from wealth and property acquired primarily through his own efforts. 27. On the issue of the Suraya development project and the villas constructed on the property, the Respondent testified that he negotiated and entered into the agreements with the developers and that the Applicant played no meaningful role in the transactions. He stated that the project was financed and managed through his own arrangements and that any subsequent arbitral awards or Court decrees in his favour resulted from his personal litigation efforts after the marriage had effectively broken down. 28. The Respondent also denied the Applicant’s claims that she supervised or financed renovations to the villas. He maintained that the Applicant had merely occupied some of the villas without lawful authority and had no proprietary interest in the developments awarded to him through arbitration and Court proceedings. He asserted that the Applicant could not claim entitlement to those assets because they were awarded after dissolution of the marriage. 29. Throughout his testimony, the Respondent emphasized that the Applicant failed to produce documentary evidence proving substantial financial contribution towards acquisition or development https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7545/eng@2026-06-04 4

page 4 of 11

of the suit properties. He insisted that the few receipts and documents relied upon by the Applicant represented insignificant amounts compared to the overall purchase and development costs and did not justify a claim for equal ownership. 30. In conclusion, the Respondent urged the Court to dismiss the Applicant’s claim for division of matrimonial property. He maintained that the evidence demonstrated that the disputed properties were acquired predominantly through his personal labour, businesses, investments and financial resources accumulated over many years, and that the Applicant had failed to prove any substantial monetary or non-monetary contribution warranting the reliefs sought. Written Submissions Applicants Submissions 31. The Applicant has filed written submissions dated 10th November, 2025; in support of her claim for division of matrimonial property arising from her marriage to the Respondent, NG, which marriage was celebrated on 5th November, 1977 and later dissolved by a decree absolute issued on 26th November, 2019. 32. She sought a declaration that several properties and proceeds acquired during the marriage constituted matrimonial property, including Githunguri/Githunguri/5x1, 16 completed villas and 5 acres forming part of L.R. No. 2xxx3/2, together with any proceeds payable to the Respondent from previous litigation involving the property. 33. The Applicant submitted that the parties jointly acquired the suit property beginning in 1992 when the vendors agreed to sell approximately 20 acres to them for Kshs. 8 million. She contended that after the agreement, she actively participated in farming and development of the land and that the parties jointly raised approximately Kshs. 1.3 million towards the purchase price through cash payments and cheques drawn from various companies jointly operated by the parties. 34. She maintained that further payments towards the property were later made through the joint venture arrangement entered into with Suraya Property Group Limited for the development of villas on the land. 35. According to the Applicant, disputes subsequently arose when the Respondent secretly transferred part of the property to another entity known as Muga Developers Limited and later entered into additional transactions excluding her. 36. She referred to HCCC No. 29 of 2009 and HCCC No. 719 of 2010, which were instituted to challenge the Respondent’s dealings with the property and to preserve the suit land pending determination of the disputes. 37. She further referred to consent orders issued on 30th March, 2011 requiring, among other things, the deposit of Kshs. 34.5 million into a joint account, execution of leases in favour of the Respondent and preservation of the 5-acre portion of the property. 38. The Applicant submitted that by the time those orders were made, approximately Kshs. 48.1 million had already been paid by the developers, part of which had been released to the Respondent while another portion was held in Court. She argued that despite her continuous efforts to prosecute the earlier proceedings and protect the matrimonial property, the disputes remained unresolved for many years. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7545/eng@2026-06-04 5

page 5 of 11

39. She also pointed out that although the parties later proceeded to arbitration in HCCC No. 719 of 2010, the arbitral award and subsequent Court proceedings failed to adequately recognize her beneficial interest in the property. The Applicant further submitted that after the collapse of the development project, she took steps to preserve and rehabilitate the unfinished villas. 40. She stated that she supervised renovations, engaged contractors and sourced materials for completion of some villas while residing in one of the units herself. She noted that she currently controls several villas whereas the Respondent controls others and occupies part of the suit property. 41. On the issues for determination, the Applicant argued that the suit properties clearly constituted matrimonial property acquired during the subsistence of the marriage. She maintained that the Respondent himself admitted that the 20-acre parcel and Githunguri/Githunguri/5x1 were acquired during coverture. 42. She submitted that she made immense direct and indirect contributions towards acquisition, development and maintenance of the properties and therefore deserved an equal share thereof. The Applicant emphasized that her contribution was both monetary and non-monetary. 43. She argued that she contributed funds directly towards the purchase price and development of the property through payments from jointly owned companies such as [Particulars Withheld] Enterprises Limited, [Particulars Withheld] Company and [Particulars Withheld] Limited. 44. She listed several cheque payments made between 1992 and 1998 through those companies and accounts, contending that the Respondent’s own replying affidavit acknowledged many of those transactions. She maintained that she was the majority shareholder and director of [Particulars Withheld] Enterprises Limited and denied the Respondent’s assertion that he solely owned the company. 45. The Applicant also submitted that the parties jointly operated various businesses and that income generated from those enterprises was applied towards acquisition and development of the suit properties. She argued that the Respondent could not now deny her participation in the businesses after previously involving her in management and decision-making. 46. According to her, documentary evidence demonstrated that she actively participated in the companies’ affairs and financially contributed to the household and property investments. 47. In addition to direct financial contributions, the Applicant highlighted her non-monetary contribution to the marriage and the properties. She explained that she personally supervised farming activities on the land, installed irrigation systems and electricity, managed household affairs, raised the children and attended to their educational and welfare needs. 48. She further stated that she participated in dispute resolution processes concerning the property and continued to protect and preserve the property even after disputes arose between the parties. 49. The Applicant relied on Sections 6 and 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act, 2013, which define matrimonial property and provide that ownership vests according to each spouse’s contribution, whether monetary or non-monetary. 50. She further cited judicial authorities recognizing that non-monetary contribution such as domestic work, child care and management of family property cannot easily be quantified but nonetheless entitles a spouse to a beneficial interest in matrimonial property. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7545/eng@2026-06-04 6

page 6 of 11

51. In conclusion, the Applicant urged the Court to find that she had established entitlement to a 50% share of the suit properties and all developments thereon. She sought equal division of the villas, the remaining acreage of the original 20-acre parcel, Githunguri/Githunguri/5x1 and any monies or proceeds payable to the Respondent from previous litigation involving the properties. 52. She also requested the Court to appoint a government surveyor to apportion the land equally between the parties and to award her costs of the suit due to the Respondent’s alleged hostility and lack of cooperation. Respondents Submissions 53. The Respondent has filed written submissions dated 3rd March, 2026 opposing the Applicant’s Originating Summons for division of matrimonial property. He characterized the claim as an attempt by the Applicant to unjustly enrich herself and argued that matrimonial property should not automatically be divided equally merely because parties were once married. 54. Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in P N N v Z W N [2017] eKLR, the Respondent submitted that division of matrimonial property must be guided by fairness and proven contribution rather than an automatic 50:50 formula. He contended that the Applicant had filed claims over matrimonial property even before the dissolution of the marriage, which according to him demonstrated opportunism and an intention to reap where she did not sow. 55. The Respondent outlined the Applicant’s claims, namely declarations that she was entitled to a 50% beneficial interest in [Particulars Withheld] Villas, 5 acres forming part of L.R. No. 2xxx3/2, Githunguri/Githunguri/5x1 and proceeds arising from litigation and arbitral proceedings connected to the properties. He, however, maintained that the Applicant had failed to establish either monetary or non-monetary contribution sufficient to justify the reliefs sought. 56. The Respondent further gave an extensive account of his personal and financial history, asserting that he had accumulated wealth and business interests long before marrying the Applicant. He explained that after graduating from university he held senior employment positions, established real estate and publishing ventures, engaged in farming and later served as a Member of Parliament. 57. According to him, the properties in dispute were acquired primarily through his own financial effort, business acumen and investments developed over many years. He submitted that during the hearing the Applicant was the only witness in support of her case and that her documentary evidence of contribution was minimal. 58. He argued that although the Applicant alleged making 8 payments towards acquisition of the suit property, she only produced receipts amounting to Kshs. 160,000/= out of the Kshs. 8 million purchase prices. According to the Respondent, this amounted to approximately 2% of the acquisition cost and therefore could not justify a 50% claim over the property. 59. He further contended that the payments relied upon by the Applicant originated from company accounts and not from her personal resources and that she neither signed nor authorized the relevant cheques. The Respondent maintained that all payments to the vendors were made by him through companies and accounts under his control. He pointed out that correspondence with the vendors, payment instructions and banking documentation bore his name or company letterheads rather than the Applicant’s. 60. He argued that the Applicant’s alleged involvement in the companies did not translate into proof of direct contribution to acquisition of the properties. In support of his position, the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7545/eng@2026-06-04 7

page 7 of 11

Respondent referred to extensive documentary evidence annexed to his replying affidavit, including sale agreements, certificates of search, land control board documents, charge instruments, rent receipts, utility applications, arbitral awards and pleadings from previous litigation. He submitted that these documents demonstrated his sole acquisition, management and development of the properties. 61. On the question whether the properties constituted matrimonial property, the Respondent conceded that the 20-acre portion of L.R. No. 2xxx3/2 was acquired during the marriage but disputed the Applicant’s entitlement to half of it. Regarding Githunguri/Githunguri/5x1, he argued that the property originated from a gift and customary trust arrangement from his father before the marriage and therefore did not qualify as matrimonial property under Section 6(3) of the Matrimonial Property Act. 62. He contended that although formal transfer occurred during the marriage, the beneficial interest had accrued to him long before coverture. 63. The Respondent strongly opposed the proposition that matrimonial property should automatically be divided equally between spouses. Relying on Sections 6 and 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act as well as Supreme Court authorities including Joseph Ombogi Ogentoto v Martha Bosibori Ogentoto and JOO v MBO, he submitted that distribution must depend on actual contribution, whether monetary or non-monetary. 64. According to him, the Applicant had failed to prove substantial contribution towards acquisition or development of either property. He insisted that he contributed 100% towards acquisition of Githunguri/Githunguri/5x1 and more than 90% towards acquisition and development of L.R. No. 2xxx3/2. On non-monetary contribution, the Respondent disputed the Applicant’s assertion that she played a substantial role in caring for the family and managing the matrimonial home. 65. He argued that the Applicant worked for [Particulars Withheld] and frequently travelled, while he himself spent more time with the children and household. He also accused the Applicant of repeatedly deserting the matrimonial home, including relocating to the United States for several years and filing divorce proceedings without properly serving him. 66. According to him, her conduct during the marriage undermined any claim of companionship or family management as recognized forms of non-monetary contribution. The Respondent further argued that the Applicant’s repeated litigation over matrimonial property demonstrated that she was motivated by financial gain rather than legitimate entitlement. 67. He relied on judicial authorities warning against fortune seekers who seek to exploit matrimonial proceedings to unjustly benefit from the efforts of the other spouse. He submitted that the Applicant’s conduct fell within that category. 68. With respect to the arbitral awards and Court decrees, the Respondent contended that the [Particulars Withheld] Villas, 5-acre parcel and monetary awards arising from HCCC No. 73 of 2017 did not constitute matrimonial property because they were awarded after dissolution of the marriage in 2014. 69. He argued that a divorced spouse cannot claim entitlement to property acquired or awarded after the marriage had ended. He further submitted that the Applicant only participated in the arbitral proceedings as a witness and that such participation did not amount to contribution under the Matrimonial Property Act. 70. In conclusion, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant had failed to discharge the burden of proving substantial monetary or non-monetary contribution towards the acquisition and development of the suit properties. He urged the Court to dismiss the suit with costs, arguing that the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7545/eng@2026-06-04 8

page 8 of 11

evidence clearly demonstrated that the properties were acquired predominantly through his personal effort, resources and investments accumulated over many years. Analysis and Determination 71. The central issue for determination is whether the Applicant has established a beneficial interest in the [Particulars Withheld] Villas, the 5-acre portion excised from L.R. No. 2xxx3/2, Githunguri/ Githunguri/5x1 and the financial awards arising from HC Misc. No. 73 of 2017, and if so, the extent of that interest. 72. Section 6 of the Matrimonial Property Act No. 49 of 2013 describes matrimonial property to mean the matrimonial home or homes, household goods and effects in the matrimonial home or homes and any other immovable and movable property jointly owned and acquired during the subsistence of the marriage. 73. Section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act No. 49 of 2013 states that Subject to section 6 (3), ownership of matrimonial property vests in the spouses according to the contribution of either spouse towards its acquisition, and shall be divided between the spouses if they divorce or their marriage is otherwise dissolved. 74. Section 8 of the Matrimonial Property Act No. 49 of 2013 states that where one spouse acquires property before or during the marriage and the property acquired during the marriage does not become matrimonial property, but the other spouse makes a contribution towards the improvement of the property, the spouse who makes a contribution acquires a beneficial interest in the property equal to the contribution made. 75. In NGV v CNV also known as CHM (Matrimonial Cause 6 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16645 (KLR) (6 December 2022) (Judgment), at paragraphs 46 and 47, the Court quoted with authority the case of TMW vs FMC (2018) eKLR where the Court adopted the definition under Section 6 of the Matrimonial Disputes Act No. 49 of 2013 to hold that for property to qualify as matrimonial property, it must have been acquired during the subsistence of marriage unless agreed by both parties that such property will not form part of the matrimonial property. The burden of proof in law lies with the party alleging that such and such property indeed was acquired during the subsistence of the marriage and therefore constitutes matrimonial property. However, the mere fact that property is acquired during coverture does not automatically entitle each spouse or party a share after dissolution of the marriage. One has to prove contribution whether direct or indirect. The onus of proof, however, is subject to a rebuttable presumption of law under Section 14 of 'Matrimonial Properties Act which provides; 'Where matrimonial property is acquired during marriage—(a) In the name of one spouse, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the property is held in trust for the other spouse; and(b) In the names of the spouses jointly, there shall be rebuttable presumption that their beneficial interests in the matrimonial property are equal.' 76. The Supreme Court of Kenya in Petition No. 10 of 2020 Joseph Ombogi Ogentoto v Martha Bosibori Ogentoto [2023] agreed with Echaria case on the principles applied for distribution of matrimonial property. It stated thus: “… [78] to our minds the finding in Echaria was essentially that a spouse does not acquire any beneficial interest in matrimonial property by fact of being married only and that specific contribution has to be ascertained to entitle such a spouse a share of the property...” The Court went on to emphasize that the spouse seeking a share in the matrimonial property has to prove the extent of his or her contribution to the acquisition or development of the property. It stated: “… [83] the guiding principle should be the apportionment and division of matrimonial property may https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7545/eng@2026-06-04 9

page 9 of 11

only be done where parties fulfill their obligation of providing what they are entitled to by way of contribution… 77. The existence of a marriage between the parties from 5th November, 1977 until its dissolution is not disputed. Equally undisputed is the fact that the 20-acre parcel forming part of L.R. No. 2xxx3/2 was acquired during the subsistence of the marriage. 78. The Applicant’s evidence, both oral and documentary, demonstrates that she participated in farming, development and management of the suit property over a long period of time. She also demonstrated involvement in family companies through which some payments towards the acquisition and development of the property were made. 79. Although the Respondent disputes the extent of her participation, the evidence on record reveals that the Applicant was not merely a passive spouse. Her evidence of supervising farming activities, managing horticultural projects, installing irrigation systems, participating in preservation of the villas and contributing to family welfare constitutes non-monetary contribution recognized under Section 2 of the Matrimonial Property Act. 80. The Respondent acknowledged that the Applicant participated in some company structures and resided on the property for many years. In the circumstances, I find that the Applicant proved both direct and indirect contribution towards acquisition and development of L.R. No. 2xxx3/2 and the developments arising therefrom. 81. However, I am is not persuaded that the Applicant proved entitlement to an automatic 50% share of the suit properties. The law as settled in Echaria v Echaria, Joseph Ombogi Ogentoto v Martha Bosibori Ogentoto and Sections 7 and 14 of the Matrimonial Property Act rejects the presumption of equal division merely on account of marriage. A spouse must demonstrate contribution, whether monetary or non-monetary, and the Court must evaluate the extent thereof. 82. The Respondent produced substantial evidence showing that he independently generated considerable income through journalism, publishing, farming and business enterprises before and during the marriage. He also demonstrated that he was principally responsible for negotiating the purchase transactions and financing major developments on the suit properties. 83. The Applicant’s documentary evidence of direct financial contribution towards the purchase price was comparatively limited and many of the payments relied upon emanated from company accounts whose ownership and control remained contested. 84. Nevertheless, the Court cannot ignore the Applicant’s prolonged involvement in development and preservation of the properties, management of family affairs and contribution to the welfare of the family which enabled the Respondent to pursue his commercial and political ventures. Taking all the circumstances into account, I hold that the Applicant established a substantial but not equal beneficial interest in the matrimonial properties. 85. With regard to Githunguri/Githunguri/5x1, the Respondent contended that the property originated from a customary trust and family arrangement predating the marriage. Although there is evidence suggesting that the Respondent’s family had prior interests in the land, the evidence also shows that the property was utilized extensively during the marriage for family and commercial purposes and that the Applicant participated in its farming and development. 86. Under Section 8 of the Matrimonial Property Act, even where property originates from one spouse, the other spouse acquires a beneficial interest proportionate to his or her contribution towards its improvement. The Applicant’s evidence that she invested retirement benefits into horticultural https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7545/eng@2026-06-04 10

page 10 of 11

farming, supervised developments and managed activities on the property was not sufficiently rebutted. 87. Accordingly, I find that while the Respondent retained a substantially greater proprietary interest in Githunguri/Githunguri/5x1, the Applicant nonetheless acquired a beneficial interest arising from her contribution towards its improvement and utilization during the marriage. 88. On the question whether the [Particulars Withheld] Villas, the 5-acre parcel and financial awards arising from HC Misc. No. 73 of 2017 constitute matrimonial property, I find that those assets are traceable to the original matrimonial property, namely L.R. No. 2xxx3/2, which was acquired and developed during coverture. The mere fact that the arbitral awards and Court decrees were issued after the marriage had broken down does not automatically extinguish the Applicant’s beneficial interest if the awards emanated from matrimonial property jointly developed during the marriage. 89. The evidence demonstrates that the development project with Suraya Property Group Limited was initiated during the marriage and concerned matrimonial land in which the Applicant had already established beneficial interests. The Applicant also participated in preservation of the developments and litigation concerning the property. 90. Consequently, I am persuaded that the villas, the 5-acre parcel and financial compensation flowing from the arbitral and Court proceedings remain part and parcel of matrimonial property and are therefore subject to apportionment under the Matrimonial Property Act. 91. In conclusion, I hold that the Applicant proved entitlement to a beneficial interest in the disputed properties though not to the extent of 50% claimed. Doing the best, in the circumstances and bearing in mind the respective direct and indirect contributions of the parties, I order as hereunder: (a) That this Court apportions the Applicant’s beneficial interest at 35% of the [Particulars Withheld] Villas, the 5-acre portion of L.R. No. 2xxx3/2 and the financial proceeds traceable to the arbitral and Court awards arising therefrom. The Respondent shall retain 65% thereof. (b) In respect of Githunguri/Githunguri/5x1, this Court finds that the property substantially originated from the Respondent’s family arrangements and pre-marital interests, but the Applicant established contribution towards its improvement and thus the Applicant is awarded a 25% beneficial interest in that property while the Respondent shall retain 75%. (c) The above properties be valued by a professional and a registered valuer to be appointed jointly by the parties and in the event of disagreement by the Deputy Registrar of this Court who shall carry out the above exercise within 90 days from the date herein and the properties be transferred to respective parties. (d) The parties be at liberty to buy out each other as of first instance and in the event of no agreement the respective properties be disposed off in a public auction Courtesy of a registered auctioneer within 90 days of such disagreement and the proceeds be shared out in the percentages stated above. (e) Each party to bear its costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2026. H K CHEMITEI JUDGE, FCIArb https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7545/eng@2026-06-04 11

page 11 of 11