Another Victory for Men! A Landmark Ruling on Distribution of Matrimonial Property after a Divorce.

-

 














The Supreme Court of Kenya has ruled that spouses are not entitled to a 50/50 share of matrimonial assets after divorce anymore.

The court ruled that a proven individual contribution shall be the only determinant of the distribution of property after divorce.

The Court also stated that while Article 45(3) of the Constitution deals with equality of the fundamental rights of spouses during the dissolution of a marriage, such is not an automatic conferment of the entitlement of a 50% share of the property just by the fact of being married to each other.

“That a party must prove contribution to enable a court to determine the percentage available to it at the distribution of matrimonial property and that the test to determine the extent of contribution is one of a case-to-case basis,” reads the ruling in part.

“That while Article 45(3) of the Constitution deals with equality of the fundamental rights of spouses during the dissolution of a marriage, such equality does not mean the re-distribution of proprietary rights or an assumption that spouses are automatically entitled to a 50% share by fact of being married.” According to the ruling by a five-judge bench led by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena.

The ruling was in response to an appeal filed by Joseph Ombogi Ogentoto, who sought to overturn a decision by the Court of Appeal that ordered the matrimonial property and rental units in the property be shared equally between himself and his estranged wife, Martha Bosibori Ogentoto.

The two were married under Abagusii customary law in 1990 and later formalized their union under the repealed Marriage Act in 1995. During the subsistence of the marriage, the couple acquired a matrimonial home and constructed rental units on the property. However, in 2008, the marriage broke down and the couple decided to dissolve the marriage.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and in its judgment, stated that there is no retrospective application of the Matrimonial Property Act and that the applicable law to claims filed before the commencement of the Act is the Married Women Property Act, 1882.

However, the Court clarified that there is nothing that bars the provisions of Article 45(3) of the Constitution from being applied retrospectively.

The Supreme Court’s ruling provides clarity on the criteria for determining the distribution of matrimonial property in cases filed before the Matrimonial Property Act came into effect and emphasizes the importance of proving contribution in such cases.

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Thank you for contributing to the richness of this conversation.

Popular posts from this blog

Debunking the Misguided Attacks on Nnamdi Kanu: A Response to Baseless Accusations and Personal Vendettas by “Ugochinyere David”

-
Image
  Debunking the Misguided Attacks on Nnamdi Kanu:  A Response to Baseless Accusations and Personal Vendettas by “Ugochinyere David”   “Ugochinyere David”, an obscure writer hiding behind a pseudonym, seeks relevance by attacking Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, a prominent freedom fighter. His article, "Kanu continues a futile attempt at grandstanding," is a biased, sensationalist piece that undermines journalistic integrity. Rather than addressing the complex legal and political issues surrounding Kanu, “David” resorts to ad hominem attacks, sweeping generalizations, and a blatant disregard for factual accuracy. This response dissects the article’s flaws and exposes its personal vendetta against Kanu.   1. Mischaracterization of Kanu’s Struggle “David” claims that Kanu has plunged the South-East into "chaos and backwardness," ignoring the decades-long marginalization and systemic injustice faced by the Igbo people. He conveniently overlooks the terror perpetrated by Ful...
Read more >>

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu ~ “I AGITATE FOR BIAFRA; IT IS MY RIGHT TO AGITATE.”

-
Image
The Unyielding Struggle of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the Biafran libration             Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s declaration, “I agitate for Biafra; it is my right to agitate,” underscores the universal fight for self-determination—a right enshrined in international law. Yet, his persecution, illegal detention, and Nigeria’s disregard for court rulings and UN directives reveal a troubling erosion of justice. From his extraordinary rendition in 2021 to the indefinite adjournment of his case, Kanu’s plight demands global attention. As the Latin saying goes, "Iniuria uni fit iniuria omnibus"—injustice to one is injustice to all. It’s a call for activists and people of conscience worldwide to rise in solidarity and demand justice.  “I AGITATE FOR BIAFRA; IT IS MY RIGHT TO AGITATE.” In a bold declaration during a recent court appearance, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), asserted, “I agitate for Biafra; it is my right to agitat...
Read more >>

Unity in Diversity: A Facade? The Nigerian Paradox and the Illusion of Amalgamation

-
Image
  Unity in Diversity: A Facade? The Nigerian Paradox and the Illusion of Amalgamation WARNING ⚠:  Kindly spare 10 -15 minutes of your time, this article is philosophical and shall require more focus and reflection.   Verily, let us embark upon a discourse most profound, a meditation upon the nature of unity and the artifice thereof, as it pertains to the entity known as Nigeria. A land vast and varied, a tapestry woven of many threads—some vibrant, some frayed—yet bound together by the hand of colonial machination. The year of our Lord 1914 marked the birth of this contrived nation, a forced amalgamation orchestrated not by the will of its peoples, but by the decree of foreign overlords. "Ex injuria jus non oritur," saith the Latin maxim: from a wrong, right cannot arise. And yet, here we stand, beholding the edifice of Nigeria, a structure built upon the sands of coercion, its foundation cracked and its walls leaning precariously.   The words of Nigeria’s s...
Read more >>