The High Court in Homa Bay ordered a couple to sell their multi-million home after a disagreement on their living arrangements after divorce.
After their divorce was finalised in January 2022, the two had agreed to live on different floors of their 2-storey building with the man taking the first floor and the woman keeping the ground floor.
However, after a year of living under the arrangement, the man complained of having a spinal cord disorder that made it difficult for him to live on the upper floor.
He went to court to have their initial agreement on sharing the house scrapped because of his health.
On the other hand, the woman stated that she was unwilling to have their earlier arrangements reversed stating that she was willing to have her share of the house bought off by her ex-husband.
Justice Kiarie Waweru, while issuing her ruling on March 28, determined that the woman had spent Ksh3.1 million on the construction of the house and asked the couple to sell the house and share the proceeds.
In response, the man stated that he was not willing to sell the house because it was built on his ancestral land adding that he had a sentimental attachment to the house.
The home consisted of the main house, servants’ quarters, a gazebo and a chicken house.
“After hearing both parties, it emerges that the best option is to allow the applicant to buy out the respondent.
“This will translate to 50 per cent of the maisonette and the value of the gazebo and the servants’ quarters valued separately," Justice Kiarie noted during the ruling.
Waweru added that should the couple fail to agree, then they should approach the Institution of Surveyors of Kenya for the house to be valued, sold and the proceeds shared between them.
The woman welcomed the proposal to have the house sold and the proceeds shared equally between her and her ex-husband.
On January 27, the supreme court ruled that one will have to prove contribution towards the accumulation of wealth to rightfully claim a share in an eventuality of a divorce.
"A party, though having not contributed more resources while acquiring the property, may have in one way or another, through their actions or their deeds, provided an environment that enabled the other party to have more resources to acquiring the property," the ruling noted.
