'I fell into depression': The cost of trusting love over legal protection
A sad woman. A review of matrimonial property disputes filed under the Matrimonial Property Act (2013) over the past decade shows that women are more likely to go to court to seek a share of property.
What you need to know:
- Women dominate property disputes, but lack of documentation leaves many vulnerable to losing everything after breakups.
- Cohabiting partners risk devastating losses when love ends without legal proof of ownership and financial contributions.
Love is sweet, but when it ends, the bitterness it leaves behind can push one into depression. The pain is often deepest when it comes to reclaiming property one invested in during the relationship.
Unfortunately, women bear the brunt of this reality. A review of matrimonial property disputes filed under the Matrimonial Property Act (2013) over the past decade shows that women are far more likely to go to court to seek a share of property.
Published in the East African Law Journal in 2025, the study reviewed 94 cases from the Kenya Law website relating to the division of matrimonial property between 2013 and 2024. Former wives initiated 82 of the cases, accounting for 87 per cent of the total, while former husbands filed only 12 cases, representing 13 per cent. Yet, there are critical steps women can take to avoid losing property they have invested in.
Love isn’t enough; formalise it
Kitelu*, a lecturer at a local university, cohabited with a fellow academic for five years before their relationship fell apart. Together, they purchased two parcels of land in Limuru, Kiambu County, and another in Kajiado County.
“He used to tell me to withdraw money from my account and deliver it to him in cash so he could pay for the land. We paid in instalments. I trusted him, and I loved him. We were living as husband and wife, so I never doubted him,” she says.
Kitelu never took the step of confirming whether her name appeared on the sale agreements. She assumed the properties belonged to both of them. When the man ended the relationship, her world shattered. “I told him we should sell the land so I could recover my share, but he said he had no idea what I was talking about. He then sent me the sale agreements and title deeds, all in his name,” she says.
“When I asked a lawyer what I could do, he told me there was nothing, since I had given the money in cash. I had no proof of my contribution whatsoever. I cannot even describe how I felt. I fell into depression. It is only now that I feel better after therapy.”
Dennis Otieno, a senior legal counsel at the Federation of Women Lawyers - Kenya, explains that cohabitation is not recognised as a form of marriage under Kenyan law, regardless of how long a couple has lived together.
“The best approach is to examine how the property was acquired. Who bought it and whether the person whose name is not on the property contributed to its purchase, for instance through financial input,” he says. “If they can demonstrate that they contributed money, they may be entitled to a refund or an equivalent value.”
He adds, “Without any formalisation, it is difficult to legally prove a marriage. Marriage is a consent-driven institution. No matter how much two people love each other, they cannot presume themselves married. The legal processes are what legitimise that union. Otherwise, many people unfortunately operate under that assumption.”
Trust isn’t enough; document everything
At the High Court in Kitale, IC (ex-wife) sought an equal share of a 10-acre farm she claimed to have fully paid for. However, her name was missing from the sale agreement because she was frequently away on foreign assignments and had trusted her husband to handle the transactions.
She would withdraw money from her bank account and give it to SS (ex-husband). In court, however, she had no evidence of these payments, while her ex-husband presented a sale agreement showing he was the sole purchaser.
In determining the case, the court relied on Section 2 of the Matrimonial Property Act, which recognises both monetary and non-monetary contributions, including domestic work, childcare, companionship, management of family business or property, and farm work. The court noted that these categories are not exhaustive.
Since the couple had lived together during the acquisition of the farm, IC had provided accommodation, and they had a child together, the court assessed her contribution at 50 per cent. This underscores the importance of formalising a union.
IC also told the court that she had purchased all the building materials for the construction of a five-bedroom house on a plot her husband had acquired before their marriage. However, she had no receipts or any proof of purchase.
The court found her claims unproven and ruled that both the plot and the house belonged solely to the ex-husband. This case highlights a hard truth: while trust is essential in a relationship, documentation can make or break a claim. Without it, a woman risks losing property acquired through years of effort.
