A Solomonic judge, [COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)]Justice Kanyi Kimondo,
in Murang’a used his great wisdom to hit the breaks on the easy path to wealth accumulation by kungurus. He ruled that for property to be divided 50/50 after the dissolution of marriage, the man or woman has to prove they contributed equally to acquiring that wealth.
The childless grandma’s at FIDA are pounding their bony fists on their mahogany tables pointing their curled arthritic fingers at the newspaper article vowing to fight the ruling.
A fragment of that story is here
[COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]A spouse is not automatically entitled to half of the marital property in case of a divorce.
This follows a High Court ruling in Murang’a in which the judge held that sharing of property will be based on the contributions made by the two parties.
Justice Kanyi Kimondo, however, noted that the contributions may be direct or indirect.
He also ruled that the party (divorcee) demanding a share of assets must prove his or her contribution towards the acquisition or development of said the property.
The judge gave the directions when delivering a judgment in a matrimonial property case where former spouses were embroiled in a fight on the mode of sharing their assets, which include three parcels of land
Why is it hard for the feminist to get…contribution towards the claimed property is so important. If you raised the kids as the man went to look for wealth… OK! You’re entitled…but where you find a billionaire already made, marry him 5yrs and want a divorce and claim half!!!..really!
You missed the point by a million miles!!! Court rules evidence is needed to divide property after divorce | Nation [COLOR=rgb(41, 105, 176)]They married in 1974 but separated more than a decade later, in 1987. They reunited in 2010 and later dissolved the marriage in 2017, the court heard.
[ol]
[li]They were married in 1974 and split after 13 years, [/li][li]Wife comes back 2010 after 23 years [/li][li]Wife files for divorce 2017 and demands 50% of the property.[/li][/ol]
The only property shes entitled to, is what was acquired between 1974 and 1987 and anything after 2010 but for the latter, she’d have to prove she made direct contributions to the acquisition .
She can only claim half of what was acquired during the marriage. In your example, their marriage lasted 5 years. So what was acquired in those 5 years. Not his other billions.
Nop. The judge clearly stated that automatic division of property on a 50/50 ratio is labbish if one party did not contribute to their accumulation. There was nowhere the good judge calculated the number of years they were married to come to his ruling. Those are your assumptions.
Ahem . . . . perhaps I read the entire article as I had assumed you’d done.
[COLOR=rgb(41, 105, 176)]“I am satisfied that during the 13 years’ coverture, the applicant made indirect or non-financial contribution towards the Ikumbi Township property. The respondent offered no clear rebuttal. I would in the circumstances, and in the interests of justice, grant the applicant half of the parcel in Ikumbi Township,” ruled Justice Kimondo.
I read the whole article. The ruling is not based on number of years they were married but by what the individuals brought into the union in terms of assets
Think, why would the judge mention the number of years they were married if it wasnt relevant???
In case you failed to notice, she got 50% of the property acquired during their first marriage!!!