Athletes Eliud Kipchoge (left), Brimin Kipruto and Daniel Komen
Marathoner Eliud Kipchoge and three elite runners have won a protracted legal battle concerning ownership of a Sh100 million property in Eldoret.
They had been sued by university lecturer, Joyce Chebichii, the spouse of their colleague athlete Daniel Komen, who had sold them the 220-acre land.
The disputed transfers were effected in 2012 in favour of the four buyers- Mr Kipchoge, Brimin Kipruto Kiprop, Felix Kipchoge Langat and Peter Kipsigei Sang.
Ms Chebichii had sought to have the transactions nullified, arguing the land was matrimonial property, and she had not consented to its sale.
But the High Court dismissed Ms Chebichii’s case and declined to cancel titles issued to third-party buyers of the land, ending a 13-year legal dispute.
The dispute also led the court to advise spouses to proactively clarify their individual property rights, stating that parties are free to regulate their affairs through post-nuptial agreements to delineate and define their proprietary interests. It underscored that marriage alone does not automatically settle property ownership questions.
The court ruled that although the contested land was acquired during the marriage of Ms Chebichii and Mr Komen and attracted spousal rights, the transfers could not be voided in the matrimonial case.
In its judgment, the court held that its jurisdiction in a matrimonial dispute is limited to determining rights between spouses. It declined to delve into land ownership questions affecting third parties.
“In the scrutiny of the evidence, placed before this court by both the Plaintiff/Applicant (Chebichii) and the Respondents, more specifically the fifth Defendant/Respondent (Komen), there is no prima-facie evidence that the suit land falls within the specs of a matrimonial home,” said the court.
Ms Chebichii had moved to court seeking to nullify the sale of the agricultural land in Eldoret.
Daniel Kipng'etich Komen in a Nairobi court on April 10, 2017.
She argued that the property was acquired and developed through joint effort during her marriage to Mr Komen. She testified that the couple married in 1998 and acquired the land during the subsistence of the union.
According to court records, they completed payment in 2005 after securing Sh6 million bank loans. The land was later transferred to Mr Komen in 2008. She said his registration was in trust for her.
Ms Chebichii told the court she managed the farm and family affairs while her husband travelled for international athletics competitions.
She was also a lecturer at Moi University and contributed in paying off the purchase price and the loan facilities. She claimed Komen later sold portions of the land without her knowledge or consent.
Kipchoge and Kiprop purchased 75 acres each, while Langat and Sang purchased 50 acres and 20 acres, respectively.
Ms Chebichii sought a court declaration that the transactions were fraudulent, unconstitutional and void for lack of spousal and Land Control Board consent.
She added that the said defendants then forcefully evicted her in 2012 when she was in the process of preparing the suit property for planting, and that they then proceeded to plant security officers to man the gates and prevent her from any form of access to the suit property.
However, the court acknowledged that the land was acquired during marriage and therefore attracted a legal presumption of trust.
“Property acquired during the subsistence of a marriage is presumed to be joint property unless and until rebuttable admissible evidence… disapproves the claim,” the court stated.
It also recognized both monetary and non-monetary contribution under the Matrimonial Property Act, including management of family property.
However, the court drew a distinction between a declaration of rights and the cancellation of title.
Matrimonial Property Act
While Section 17 of the Matrimonial Property Act allows a spouse to seek a declaration of interest in contested property, division or interference with registered titles cannot be granted in a subsisting marriage.
The court noted that the couple remains married since there are no divorce proceedings.
It further held that disputes touching on the validity of land transfers and cancellation of title fall within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court, not a matrimonial cause.
As a result, the third-party titles remain intact. The buyers denied any wrongdoing and argued that they lawfully purchased the land from Daniel Komen for value.
They maintained that the transfers were properly executed, that some sale proceeds were paid in the presence of Ms Chebichii, and that their titles were protected under the law. They further contended that the matrimonial dispute could not invalidate their registered ownership.
Mr Komen admitted selling the land but told the court he did not obtain his wife’s consent before completing the transactions.
The court also observed that couples are at liberty to enter into post-nuptial agreements to clearly define ownership of assets, noting that marriage alone does not automatically settle questions of proprietary rights without clear evidence of contribution or agreement.
It advised spouses to proactively clarify property rights, stating that parties are free to regulate their affairs through agreements.
The judgment brings to a close a 13-year dispute that began when Ms Chebichii filed the case at the Environment and Land Court before it was transferred for determination as a matrimonial cause.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
