Court Orders Woman to Share 30pc Wealth with Estranged Lover
A Nairobi entrepreneur who was evicted by a woman he lived with for 25 years will now receive his fair share of the wealth they amassed, totaling 30 percent.
The individual referred to as POM, to safeguard his anonymity, will be responsible for collecting rent from 11 of the 38 units, which include both residential and commercial spaces with one and two-bedroom units and shops. Additionally, he will also receive rental income from the property dating back to the year he was evicted in 2011.
High Court Judge Hillary Chemitei mandated adherence to a Supreme Court decision granting the man a 30 percent stake in the assets.
“I do not think that what the POM is asking is out of his 30 percent right in the suit property. He should be allowed to enjoy the same,” the judge said in his ruling.
The conflict originates from a legal matter concerning the distribution of assets, which underwent litigation to the highest court in the land.
The highest court, which conclusively resolved this dispute, stated that there was no marital relationship between the individuals involved. However, it still ruled that the man should receive 30 percent and the woman 70 percent of the assets, as both were found to have a legal claim to the wealth.
The man filed a lawsuit against the woman, alleging that she was his spouse.
He contended that they started living together as a married couple in 1986 and that they used their shared savings to buy a property, which later became the subject of dispute after he was evicted.
The gentleman clarified that the property was listed under the woman’s name because the owner was hesitant to sell to him due to his different tribal affiliation.
Matrimonial home
“The property was registered in the woman’s name although we had both contributed to its acquisition,” he said, adding that they took possession of the property between 1992 and 1993.
Afterward, they built rooms on the property, designating one as their marital residence while leasing out the rest.
He stated that he had completed all the necessary groundwork for connecting electricity, sewerage, and water to the property, and also ran a bar from there.
He expressed sorrow over the fact that the woman expelled him despite his significant input into acquiring and enhancing the property. He mentioned that, during that period, the monthly rent amounted to Sh258,100.
She dismissed the man’s assertions and refuted any connection to the acquisition of the suit property.
“I allowed him to manage the property because we were friends,” she said.
She stated that she had previously entered into a customary marriage with a person named KM, who has since passed away. Despite their separation, she clarified that she never obtained a legal divorce from him.
She mentioned that she couldn’t enter a new marriage as long as her first marriage remained valid.
She additionally asserted that following KM’s passing in 2011, the individual escalated their harassment in an attempt to pressure her into marriage. This led her to take legal action by filing a civil suit to prevent the individual from intruding on her properties.
ALSO READ:
- How not to make a mistake when choosing the best bookmaker in Kenya
- Understanding Gatwiri’s Cause of Death: Unraveling Positional Asphyxiation
- KRA Rules Out Tax Relief on SHIF Deductions
- Understanding Why Married Women Cheat: Common Reasons Behind Infidelity
- Violence Erupts in Mozambique: Three Killed, 66 Injured in Protests Over Disputed Election
The High Court rejected the man’s lawsuit upon determining that despite the extended cohabitation between the individuals, the presumption of marriage couldn’t be applied because the woman was already married to KM.
The High Court ruled that the woman was unable to wed the man due to their adulterous relationship, emphasizing that their cohabitation did not meet the criteria for marriage.
POM appealed to the Court of Appeal, where it was assumed that a marriage existed. As a result, the appeal was granted, and the court ordered the division of the suit property into two equal parts, one for each party.
The issue was subsequently brought before the highest court, which concurred with the woman’s argument that she could not enter into another marriage with the man. Therefore, the assumption of marriage could not be applied under those circumstances.
However, the man was fortunate to receive a portion of the estate, with assistance from the Family Division of the High Court securing it for him.
Collected rent
Last year on July 26th, the man went to the High Court to request the enforcement of the Supreme Court’s decision issued in January.
He requested the judge’s permission to enter the premises, manage rental collections, and receive the proceeds from rents accumulated during his displacement after being evicted.
“Once the total amount of the rental income collected by the respondent from September 2011 until the end of June 2023 is ascertained, an order be issued that the defendant remits to me 30 percent within thirty days of such ascertainment,” he submitted.
As of February 24, the woman hadn’t submitted any response to the man’s application when the judge issued the ruling.
The High Court judge observed that the evidence indicates the man hasn’t benefited from the property’s proceeds since being evicted in 2011.
Justice Chemitei also observed that POM has the right to receive 30 percent of the rental earnings accumulated from the property throughout the years.
“It appears that from the day he was kicked out of the premises in 2011, he has never benefited at all. There is no evidence to that effect. There is, therefore, no doubt that the woman has all along enjoyed the rent collected from the premises ever since,” said the judge.
The woman has also been instructed to provide accurate reports of the rent received from the units owed to POM from 2011 until the conclusion of June 2023 within a 30-day timeframe.
“Alternatively and without prejudice to this order and at their costs, a valuer or estate agent either agreed upon or each party to appoint, carry out the rent so far collected by the respondent from September 2011 to date and the 30 percent thereof be paid to the man by the woman,” said the judge.
Moreover, Justice Chemitei, in implementing the Supreme Court’s ruling, instructed the appointment of professionals to delineate the undeveloped sections of the property with utmost care. The expenses will be divided between the parties in the proportion of 70% and 30% respectively.
“The report and findings of the parties shall be filed in this court within 90 days from the date herein,” said the judge.
The individual responsible for overseeing the Muthangari police station or any other station within the area must ensure that the directives are followed accordingly.
Court Orders Woman to Share 30pc Wealth with Estranged Lover
