NAKURU, Kenya — The High Court in Nakuru has awarded a professional athlete 80 per cent of the matrimonial property accumulated during her marriage after finding that she was the family’s primary breadwinner and the main financier of the disputed assets.
In a judgment that underscores the importance of evidence in matrimonial property disputes, Justice Samuel Mohochi ruled that while both financial and non-financial contributions are recognised under Kenyan law, the division of marital assets must ultimately reflect each spouse’s proven contribution.
The court found that the athlete financed the acquisition of most of the family’s properties through her marathon winnings, salary as a police officer and rental income, while her husband failed to demonstrate substantial financial involvement in the purchase of the assets.
As a result, the judge awarded the woman an 80 per cent share of the matrimonial home and other disputed properties, while granting the husband a 20 per cent stake in recognition of his limited but valid non-monetary contribution to the marriage.
Court documents showed that the woman enjoyed a successful athletic career, earning significant income from international marathon competitions in addition to her salary and investments.
According to her testimony, she entrusted her husband with managing her finances while she focused on training and competing. She told the court that she handed over bank cards and prize money, much of it received in foreign currency, and allowed him to oversee financial transactions and development projects on her behalf.
The court heard that the husband regularly deposited the athlete’s earnings into accounts under his control before using the funds to acquire various properties.
However, after reviewing financial records, witness testimony and documentary evidence, Justice Mohochi concluded that the husband had failed to account adequately for the money entrusted to him and had attempted to claim ownership of assets that were largely financed by his wife’s income.
In his ruling, the judge noted that although the disputed funds passed through accounts managed by the husband, there was no evidence showing that he generated the income used to acquire the assets.
“The Plaintiff rode on the Defendant’s athletic triumphs, inserting himself as the custodian of her finances and overseer of her projects while she laboured in training and competition,” Justice Mohochi stated.
The court found that the athlete’s marathon winnings, employment income and rental proceeds were the primary source of funding for the properties under dispute.
“The defendant was the financial muscle of the marriage. Her trust was betrayed, her financial strength exploited, and equity demands that she be protected,” the judge added.
The ruling highlights the growing role courts play in tracing the source of funds used to acquire matrimonial property and determining ownership based on evidence rather than assumptions about traditional family roles.
Justice Mohochi also criticised the husband for disposing of some of the contested properties while the case was still before the court.
The judge noted that the transactions were carried out despite existing court orders aimed at preserving the assets pending determination of the dispute.
“Such actions frustrate the equitable division of matrimonial property and suggest an attempt to manipulate the properties to his advantage,” he observed.
The court said such conduct undermines judicial processes and can complicate efforts to ensure a fair distribution of marital assets.
Kenya’s Matrimonial Property Act recognises both monetary and non-monetary contributions when determining ownership and division of property acquired during marriage.
Non-monetary contributions may include domestic work, childcare, companionship, management of family businesses and support provided to a spouse during the marriage.
However, courts have consistently held that entitlement to matrimonial property is not automatically based on a 50-50 formula. Instead, judges assess the evidence presented and allocate shares according to each party’s proven contribution.
Legal experts say the Nakuru ruling reinforces the principle that spouses who make substantial financial contributions must be able to demonstrate how their earnings were used, while those claiming ownership of assets must provide evidence supporting their claims.
Also Read: Rivonia Suites founder Deux Tibingana announces divorce, alleges business lockout
The decision is likely to attract attention because it departs from the common perception that matrimonial property should always be divided equally upon separation.
By awarding the athlete 80 per cent of the assets, the court emphasised that equitable distribution does not necessarily mean equal distribution.
The ruling also serves as a reminder of the importance of financial accountability within marriages, particularly where one spouse is entrusted with managing significant earnings generated by the other.
For many observers, the case highlights the growing willingness of Kenyan courts to scrutinise financial records and protect spouses whose contributions can be clearly traced to the acquisition of family wealth.
