The High Court ordered Abraham Kibet and his ex-wife Diana Chepkoech to share their matrimonial home on 10 and 90 per cent ratio.
Justice Reuben Nyakundi declared Chepkoech as the beneficial owner of property ELDORET MUNICIPALITY/BLOCK 9/2365 measuring about 0.29 hactares or about two thirds of an acre in which a two-bedroomed family house is built.
Kibet was seeking at least half of the property on the basis that he had contributed to the acquisition of the plot as well as the construction of the house in which he was dwelling in with his ex-wife and their two children.
Chepkoech moved to the high court on March 5 seeking to be declared the beneficial owner of the property after the ex-husband threatened to evict her from the home. They had bought the land from one James Onase in 2013.
In a decision dated June 12 Justice Nyakundi stated whereas they two were legally married and had since successfully divorced, their home qualifies as matrimonial property. The two cohabited as husband and wife between 2010 and 2023 according to court documents.
“That the beneficial interests of the parties are hereby determined as follows: -Diana Chepkoech at 90 per cent and Abraham Kipkoech Kibet at 10 per cent Justice Nyakundi directed.
He further ordered that the property shall be subjected to valuation by an independent, qualified and licensed valuer agreed upon by the parties within thirty (30) days and that upon valuation, either party shall be at liberty to purchase the interest of the other based on the valuation report on a priority basis.
“That in the event neither party elects to buy out the other's interest within thirty (30) days after filing of the valuation report, the property shall be sold in the open market and the shared on the 90 per cent to 10 per cent basis.
The marriage was dissolved vide Eldoret Chief Magistrate's Court divorce cause number E113 of 2025.
Chepkoech told the court that she is gainfully employed as a health records technician at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital while Kibet was and still is a househusband.
Kibet said he met and fell in love with Chepkoech in 2009 and it was not long before they started cohabiting in a rented house while they planned to purchase property and construct their own home.
He argued that whereas his ex-wife was employed at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital, throughout the marriage and after its dissolution he was a business man, a farmer and a casual labourer at some instances.
“That at all instances while we had the plan to purchase land and build our own home, the Petitioner and I mutually agreed that we needed to save for the same. Since she owned a pay slip and she was always sure of salary, I on the other hand had to hustle my way through, it was for that reason that we decided that she would be the one to keep the money for the intended property purchase,” Kibet said.
However, Chepkoech argued that solely purchased the parcel of land, solely financed the construction of the matrimonial home and bought all the household items, she has consistently met financial obligations including school fees, utilities and general upkeep of the family.
After evaluating the evidence on record, he concluded that Kibet had not provided any evidence on his actual contribution to the acquisition to the land and the construction of the house.
“Nevertheless, matrimonial property disputes cannot be approached solely from the perspective of financial contribution. Section 2 of the Matrimonial Property Act recognises non-monetary contribution in the form of domestic work, management of the matrimonial home, child care, companionship, management of family businesses and farm work,” the judge said.
