Ex-magistrate fights court ruling on 50-50 property split with wife

A former magistrate has moved to the Court of Appeal to challenge a precedent-setting judgment in which he and his ex-wife were ordered to share their matrimonial property equally.

Pending hearing and determination of the appeal, however, the man has obtained a temporary order suspending execution of the judgment. The three-judge bench stayed the judgment made by Justice Asenath Ongeri after the plaintiff, code named SMK, protested a 50-50 split of the wealth. 

In urging the bench to suspend the execution, SMK argued that Justice Ongeri failed to distinguish between and separate the properties acquired before, and during marriage.

Justice Ongeri had ruled that, should the couple fail to agree on how to distribute the wealth, the assets should be sold and the net proceeds shared out equally. The properties include a fleet of vehicles, residential houses, rental flats and various parcels of lands. 

AGGRIEVED

The man was aggrieved by the court’s finding that his ex-wife, code named NWM, contributed towards the acquisition of the properties by giving him companionship and taking care of their children.  

He said the judge erred because the ex-wife had stated in her pleadings and evidence that she was a nurse in full-time employment working day and night shifts.

Following the judgment made on January 24, SMK said NWM had changed locks to the matrimonial home in Karen Estate in Nairobi with the intention of denying him access.

LIVING TOGETHER

“The judge erred in failing to find that the respondent was currently a potato and bee-keeping farmer and also owned properties which details she ought to have disclosed,” he stated in his application.

He submitted that Justice Ongeri should have considered that the marriage had already deteriorated back in 2000 and not in 2015 as claimed by the woman. NWM had testified that the marriage legally ceased in 2015 by virtue of a divorce cause.

But during the pendency of the divorce case and the present matrimonial dispute, the court heard, the two had been living together in their matrimonial home.