The High Court in Nakuru has awarded a professional athlete 80 per cent of the matrimonial property accumulated during her marriage, finding that she was the primary financier of the family's wealth. Her estranged husband was awarded a 20 per cent share in recognition of his non-monetary contribution.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Samuel Mohochi, the court found that the woman's earnings from international marathon competitions, her salary as a police officer and rental income financed the acquisition of most of the disputed assets.
The judge ruled that although the husband managed the family's affairs and handled the athlete's finances, he failed to prove that he made significant financial contributions towards purchasing the properties.
Court records showed that due to her demanding training and competition schedule, the athlete entrusted her husband with her bank cards and prize money, including payments received in foreign currency. He deposited the funds into accounts under his control before the money was used to acquire several properties.
However, after reviewing bank statements and witness testimony, the court concluded that the properties were largely purchased using the wife's income and that the husband had not demonstrated that he generated the funds used for the investments.
"The Plaintiff rode on the Defendant's athletic triumphs, inserting himself as the custodian of her finances and overseer of her projects while she laboured in training and competition," Justice Mohochi said.
The court further found that the husband failed to account for the money entrusted to him and later sought to claim ownership of properties primarily financed by the wife's earnings.
Justice Mohochi also criticised the husband for selling some of the disputed properties while the case was still pending, despite court orders preserving the assets.
"Such actions frustrate the equitable division of matrimonial property and suggest an attempt to manipulate the properties to his advantage," the judge ruled.
In reaching its decision, the court held that matrimonial property should not be divided equally by default, but rather according to each spouse's proven financial and non-financial contributions.
"The Defendant was the financial muscle of the marriage. Her trust was betrayed, her financial strength exploited, and equity demands that she be protected," Justice Mohochi stated.
Comments
Sign in with Google to comment, reply, and like comments.
Continue with Google