A Nairobi businessman, known as POM to protect his identity, who cohabited with a woman for 25 years, has been granted a 30% share of the wealth they accumulated. The High Court Judge Hillary Chemitei upheld a Supreme Court ruling that entitled POM to the percentage. The dispute originated from a wealth division case, which had reached the Supreme Court. Despite the court determining that there was no marriage between the parties, it held that the man was entitled to 30% of the wealth.
The man filed the case against the woman, claiming they began living together as husband and wife in 1986. They jointly purchased a property from their savings, which became a point of contention when he was evicted in 2011. The property was registered in the woman’s name, but the man argued they both contributed to its acquisition. The dispute reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the man’s entitlement to a 30% share.
High Court Judge Chemitei ordered the woman to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, allowing the man to collect rent from 11 out of 38 commercial and residential units on the property. The order also allows him to benefit from the rent collected from the premises since he was evicted in 2011. The judge emphasized that POM should be allowed to enjoy his 30% right in the property.
The woman had rejected the man’s claims, denying his involvement in the property’s purchase. She argued that they were friends, and she allowed him to manage the property. The High Court initially dismissed the man’s case, citing an adulterous relationship and the woman’s existing marriage under customary law. The Court of Appeal, however, presumed the existence of a marriage and ordered the property’s division.
Moving to the Supreme Court, it agreed with the woman that she could not enter into another marriage with the man due to her existing marriage. Nevertheless, the man was granted a 30% share of the property. Seeking implementation of the Supreme Court ruling, POM approached the High Court last year, requesting access to the property, the collection of rent, and benefitting from past rent.
Justice Chemitei noted that the evidence showed the man had not benefited from the property since his eviction in 2011. The judge ruled that POM is entitled to 30% of the rental income accrued from the premises over the years. The woman was directed to provide an account of the rent collected from the units to which POM is entitled from 2011 to June 2023. Additionally, professionals were ordered to demarcate undeveloped portions of the property in compliance with the Supreme Court judgment.
