Court has ordered a 50:50 division of matrimonial property after exposing a man's web of disputed asset transfers in a bid to lock out wife.
A Nairobi court has ordered a 50:50 division of matrimonial property after exposing a web of disputed asset transfers involving a secret lover, a cousin and a company.
The High Court family division ruled that a man codenamed IMW unlawfully attempted to shield family assets from his estranged wife, even as the law guarantees equal sharing of jointly owned property.
The court found that three vehicles were secretly transferred to third parties during the breakdown of the marriage to defeat the woman’s claim to shared assets.
The couple, Mr IMW and Ms CMP, had lived together since 2008 in Nairobi’s Fedha Estate, formalised their marriage in 2013 and built a life that included property and family assets.
They built a blended family, raising two children of their own alongside the man’s two children from a previous relationship. During this period, the woman worked at a local telecommunications company and ran a boutique business, while contributing to household finances and asset acquisition.
The couple later moved to a four-bedroom maisonette they developed in Syokimau, built on land bought in 2014 using a mix of loans, savings and joint funds.
They also acquired land in Joska in 2011 during their cohabitation and purchased several motor vehicles for family use, forming the core of the dispute after their separation in 2017 when the woman was evicted from the matrimonial home.
At the centre of the matrimonial dispute were three motor vehicles registered in the man’s name but allegedly acquired using family resources.
Evidence presented in court showed that one vehicle was transferred to a woman named as a co-respondent in the divorce proceedings.
Another was transferred to the man’s cousin, before being moved again to a business entity. A third was placed under a company linked to both parties.
The court found that these transactions were not ordinary dealings but were closely tied to the timing of the marital dispute.
“The timing and recipients of the transfers expose the respondent’s mala fides,” the court ruled, pointing to the overlap between the asset transfers and the breakdown of the marriage.
The court noted that the transfers occurred as divorce proceedings were underway, raising concerns that they were intended to reduce the pool of assets available for division.
In one instance, the vehicle transferred to the alleged mistress was moved during the pendency of the dispute. Another vehicle passed through the hands of a relative before ending up in a separate enterprise.
A man secretly transferred assets to third parties to shield family property from wife.
The judge found that such actions were designed to place the assets beyond the reach of the wife.
“Transfers executed with the intention to defeat a spouse’s financial claim are subject to being set aside. These transfers were sham transactions designed to dissipate the matrimonial estate,” the ruling stated.
The court further addressed the use of a company as a vehicle for holding one of the disputed assets. The man had transferred one car to a firm in which both parties were directors.
However, the court rejected the attempt to rely on corporate structures to shield matrimonial property.
“Clever paperwork cannot erase a spouse’s beneficial interests,” the judge said, adding that the corporate veil can be lifted where a company is used to hide family assets.
The court declared that all three vehicles remained matrimonial property, regardless of whose name they were registered in or where they had been transferred.
It also found that the transfers were conducted without the wife’s consent, in violation of the law governing matrimonial property.
“An estate or interest in any matrimonial property shall not, during the subsistence of a monogamous marriage and without the consent of both spouses, be alienated in any form, whether by way of sale, gift, lease, mortgage or otherwise,” the court stated, highlighting the legal requirement for joint decision-making.
Referring to Section 12(1) of the Matrimonial Property Act, it warned that attempts to conceal matrimonial property through informal transfers or corporate structures cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.
The woman had presented bank records showing she contributed funds towards the purchase of one of the vehicles, including a Sh400,000 transfer linked to an insurance payout.
The court accepted this evidence and rejected the man’s claim that the money was a loan repayment unrelated to the vehicle.
While the vehicles had already changed hands, the court declined to order their recovery from third parties, citing practical and legal complications.
Court has ordered a 50:50 division of matrimonial property after exposing a man's web of disputed asset transfers in a bid to lock out wife.
Instead, it ordered the man to compensate his former wife for her share. He was ordered to pay her an amount equivalent to 50 percent of the vehicles’ market value at the time they were transferred.
“The law of equity provides a remedy: where a trustee unlawfully alienates trust property, the beneficiary is entitled to compensation for the value of their lost share. Therefore, the respondent shall be ordered to reimburse the Applicant a sum equivalent to 50% of the market value of the three vehicles as at the date he unlawfully transferred them,” said Justice Helene Namisi.
The ruling forms part of a broader dispute over matrimonial property, which also includes land and a family home. The court ordered that these assets be shared equally between the parties.
The court declared that both the Syokimau matrimonial home and the Joska land were jointly owned matrimonial properties and ordered that they be shared equally at 50:50.
It directed that the two properties be valued by an independent valuer within 45 days, after which the man would have the first option to buy out the woman’s share within 90 days. If he fails to do so, the court ordered that the properties be sold and the proceeds divided equally between them.
The judge rejected the man’s claim of sole ownership, finding that the properties were jointly registered and supported by both financial and non-financial contributions, including the woman’s income, loans and domestic work.
The judgment strengthens the principle that matrimonial property cannot be disposed of unilaterally, especially during a dispute.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
