The High Court has held that contribution within a marriage is not limited to direct financial payment towards the acquisition of assets, but also indirect support that facilitates the purchase of property, thereby giving rise to a claim in matrimonial property.
In making this determination, the court found that a woman, who used her salary to meet household expenses, indirectly enabled her husband to save, service loans, and acquire property, thereby establishing a beneficial interest in assets such as plots of land, a motor vehicle, and a matrimonial home.
The court further noted that documents presented by the woman as evidence — demonstrating how the couple managed their household budget — confirmed that she made an indirect contribution by using her salary to meet family expenses.
“In effect, she made an indirect monetary contribution to the acquisition of the property by making her salary available to meet other family expenses. I agree with her assertion that this enabled the man to grow his savings and repay the loans taken,” the court stated.
In addition, the court observed that the woman, identified in the record as NNS, also provided companionship to the man, identified as ABM, in her role as his wife.
“It is, therefore, my finding that NNS made an indirect monetary contribution to the acquisition of the three plots in Trans Nzoia and Tana River counties, and in the purchase of the motor vehicle,” the court held in the May 21 judgement.
The dispute arose following the dissolution of the marriage on November 28, 2024 after which the woman filed a claim over properties acquired during the subsistence of the union. She contended that several assets registered in the man’s name were jointly acquired and held in trust for both parties.
Contentious battles over alimony and property are often fueled by unhealed emotional wounds and personality clashes rather than legal necessity.
Photo credit: Photo | Photo
In her pleadings, she maintained that the properties, which included plots in Trans Nzoia and Tana River counties as well as a motor vehicle, were acquired through joint effort. She submitted that there was unity of purpose in acquisition, as the parties would budget jointly and allocate resources, reflecting a shared financial strategy during the marriage.
“Although the defendant obtained loans in his name, my income enabled the household to meet other obligations, thereby facilitating the acquisition and development of assets,” she said.
NNS further argued that her income catered for household expenses, thereby establishing indirect contribution within the meaning of the Matrimonial Property Act.
She also relied on financial records showing consistent income and participation in budgeting, stating that the notes produced in court showed that the parties held meetings to plan expenses and investments, reinforcing joint financial management.
Non-monetary contribution
On ownership, she invoked the presumption of trust under the Matrimonial Property Act, arguing that registration in the defendant’s name did not extinguish her equitable interest.
“Though the property may have been registered in the name of the defendant, the same is being held in trust for me,” she said.
NNS further sought compensation for her contribution towards the matrimonial home, stating that she would not benefit from its occupation and limiting her claim to loss of use.
NNS also relied on her non-monetary contribution, stating that she was actively involved in supervising the construction and furnishing of the matrimonial home in Tana River County.
Evidence further showed that in 2022, the defendant obtained a loan used for construction, while the plaintiff secured a separate loan from Safaricom Sacco used to finance roofing.
The defendant maintained that, apart from the land NNS was gifted by his sister, the rest of the properties were acquired solely through his savings and financing arrangements.
The court held that although the plaintiff’s contribution was proved, it did not equal to that of the defendant. Accordingly, the court declared the properties matrimonial property and affirmed a 30:70 distribution.
“The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff Sh1.1 million, being her 30 per cent share contribution towards the construction of the matrimonial house,” the court stated.
It further directed valuation of the remaining properties, including the motor vehicle, to facilitate equitable distribution.
