Court Awards Divorced Husband 80% of House He Shared With Ex-Wife

The Court of Appeal has awarded a husband 80% of a house jointly registered in his name and that of his former wife during a divorce hearing after finding that he made the larger contribution towards its acquisition.

The decision was made in CLO v AJM alias AO (Civil Appeal E978 of 2024) on July 31, 2026. The dispute involved several properties acquired during the couple’s marriage, but the appeal succeeded only in relation to Avenue Park Phase II House No. 43B.

CLO and AJM were married in 1987 under Luo customary law before solemnising their marriage in church in 1999.

They had two children, who were adults by the time the marriage ended. Their divorce was granted in 2021.

During the marriage, the couple acquired four properties, including the Avenue Park house, which was registered in their joint names.

The other properties included the Funguо house, registered in the wife’s name, the Kabondo property, registered in the husband’s name, and the Tree Lane house, which the wife acquired after selling the Funguо property.

Husband Challenged 20% Share During Divorce Hearing 

After the divorce, the husband went to the High Court seeking orders on how the properties should be distributed.

He argued that the properties were matrimonial assets and proposed that he take the Avenue Park house and Kabondo property while his former wife took the Funguо and Tree Lane houses.

High Court, however, awarded the husband 20% of the Avenue Park house and the wife 80%. It also awarded the husband 20% of the Tree Lane house and 50% of the Kabondo property, while making no distribution order concerning the Funguо house.

The husband appealed, arguing that the High Court had failed to properly assess the contributions made by both parties.

Husband Said He Paid the Avenue Park Loan

Through his lawyer, the husband argued that he bought the Avenue Park house and serviced the loan using his salary.

His lawyer told the Court of Appeal that the wife had not contributed towards the acquisition of the house despite it being registered in both their names.

The wife, however, argued that she had contributed financially by paying a Ksh640,000 deposit towards the house. She also said she contributed indirectly by providing her payslip, which helped secure the loan, and by taking care of household expenses while the husband serviced the loan.

Also Read: Court Upholds Dismissal of Teacher Who Missed Work to Care for Sick Father

Court Says Marriage Does Not Automatically Mean Equal Shares

Court of Appeal relied on established principles that matrimonial property should be divided based on the actual contribution of each spouse.

The court recognised both financial and non-financial contributions, including domestic work and other indirect contributions.

It cited the Supreme Court’s position that,“A spouse does not acquire any beneficial interest in matrimonial property by fact of being married only.”

Court of Appeal said the division must be based on each spouse’s “actual verifiable contribution” towards the acquisition and development of the property.

The judges stressed that courts must make a fair and equitable division based on evidence showing the contribution of each spouse.

Also Read: Kenya Unveils LuLu, New Submarine Cable to Link Mombasa to Lamu by 2028

Court Finds High Court Was Wrong

After reviewing the evidence, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court had not properly justified giving the husband only 20% of the Avenue Park house.

The appellate judges noted that the evidence did not show that the wife’s direct and indirect contribution was greater than the husband’s contribution.

Court added that the High Court had failed to apply the principle of fairness based on the ascertainable contribution of each spouse.

Husband Gets 80%, Wife 20%

The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s distribution of Avenue Park Phase II House No. 43B.It ordered that the husband receive 80% of the property while the wife receives 20%.

It further directed that if the parties could not agree on how to divide the property, it should be valued and sold, with the proceeds shared according to the 80:20 ratio.

The court also ordered each party to bear their own costs of the appeal because it was a family dispute.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for more updates

Photo of Court hammer to illustrate ruling made
PHOTO/EACC