Marriage does not always equate to common ownership of property

Columnist

In the event of a divorce, how is the property supposed to be divided between the two parties? What informs who gets what?

Dear reader,

In the case of Joseph Ombogi Ogentoto v. Martha Bosibori Ogentoto, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle of contribution concerning matrimonial property. The Court clarified that marriage does not automatically equate to common ownership or co-ownership of property. It also warned against the simplistic notion of marriage equality, which implies a 50 per cent division of property. The Court emphasized the importance of understanding the concept of contribution. The interpretation and application of this concept has a higher probability of an individual exiting the marriage with the wealth they have acquired through their efforts. The Supreme Court's decision is based on Section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act, which recognizes contributions as either monetary or non-monetary in nature.

Marriage does not always equate to common ownership of property

In the headlines

Dutchman, Kenyan woman clash over Sh2.2m ‘love’ gift ends in court

Court saves taxpayers Sh120bn in Moi-era supplier claim

Why tap water is turning green in homes around Lake Victoria

PREMIUM Is land bought after marriage automatically considered shared property?

PREMIUM Why land succession continues to be a thorn in the flesh for women

PREMIUM Dutchman, Kenyan woman clash over Sh2.2m ‘love’ gift ends in court

PREMIUM Court saves taxpayers Sh120bn in Moi-era supplier claim

PREMIUM Why tap water is turning green in homes around Lake Victoria

Is land bought after marriage automatically considered shared property?

Why land succession continues to be a thorn in the flesh for women

Dutchman, Kenyan woman clash over Sh2.2m ‘love’ gift ends in court

Court saves taxpayers Sh120bn in Moi-era supplier claim

Why tap water is turning green in homes around Lake Victoria