A Kenya-born nurse based in the United States has lost a bid to compel her estranged husband in Kenya to disclose his identity and the location of matrimonial properties acquired during their marriage and stop him from selling them.
This follows the High Court’s ruling that she failed to prove any contribution to the acquisition of the multi-million shilling properties.
The court declined her request to issue orders blocking the man, identified as PWN, from dealing with properties in Thika, Juja, Gilgil and Gatundu, and refused to compel him to disclose his additional assets.
Apart from stating that she was a nurse working in the USA, the court said she failed to attach or exhibit her sources of income and the trail of her income and expenditure, which would point to her contribution to the assets.
The dispute arose from a collapsing marriage, with parallel divorce proceedings pending before a Thika magistrate's court.
The woman, codenamed Ms BWW, told the court she had been married to Mr PWN since 1995 and had “heavily contributed” to acquiring and developing multiple properties registered in his name.
She asked the court to preserve the assets, including a home in Gatundu South, land in Gilgil, Nakuru County, an apartment complex in Juja, a plot in Kiboko estate, Thika and land/shares plots with Mang’u Investment Company. She feared they could be sold once the matrimonial property case was filed.
She also sought orders compelling the man to reveal all the matrimonial properties and provide his tax identification details to verify ownership.
But the man opposed the application, insisting most of the assets were not matrimonial property as alleged. He maintained that they were either inherited, gifted, or acquired independently after his separation from Ms BWW in 2006.
He said part of the land, including a parcel in Chania village Gatundu, was gifted to him by his father in 1992 before the marriage, while the rest -situated in Gilgil, Mang’u and Muthondu Farms —were later acquired through inheritance after succession proceedings following his family’s estate distribution in 2021.
Mr PWN further disclosed that for the properties in Juja, Kiboko Estate and Kangema Farms, he purchased and developed them between 2007 and 2021, which were years after he had separated from Ms BWW.
In his affidavit, he stated that he had separate investment systems in Kenya and in Boston, United States.
The court noted that although the existence of the marriage was not disputed, there was sharp disagreement on when it began and when the properties were acquired.
The judge found that the relationship lasted longer than the four years claimed by the man, placing the period of cohabitation between 1995 and 2006.
However, the woman’s claim faltered on evidence. “I am unable to tell from the pleadings and affidavits what she brought to the table, whether monetary or otherwise, during the 11 years the marriage subsisted,” said Justice Benjamin Musyoki.
The court said she had made only general statements about contribution without showing how or when she supported the acquisitions.
“The facts or details given by the plaintiff are too scanty,” the court said, noting the absence of financial records or proof of income that could trace her input.
“I hold the view that she must be deliberately withholding from court some pertinent information which if disclosed will expose her insincerity and as such it is my finding that she has approached this court with unclean hands,” said the judge.
The court also rejected her request for disclosure of assets, describing it as an improper attempt to use the court to investigate her former spouse.
“Asking this court to compel the defendant to disclose the properties or his KRA PIN brings out a picture of a person who was out of touch with their relationship,” the judge ruled.
“A court cannot be treated as an enabler of an individual’s investigations or desires for discovery unless the discoveries are directly emanating from what is already pleaded or subject of the suit,” added Justice Musyoki.
On the request to freeze the properties, the court said she had not established a strong case or shown she would suffer irreparable loss if the order was not granted.
“She has not told the court how much she invested in these properties. She has not given the value for the properties. She has not alluded to the fact that the defendant would not be able to compensate her in the event the court finally finds that she was entitled to some share of the properties,” the judge said.
The court concluded that the application lacked merit and dismissed it, stating that the “defendant should not be inconvenienced by an order of the court in enjoying his rightly acquired properties”.
However, the ruling leaves the door open for the woman to pursue her claim during the full hearing of the matrimonial property dispute.
