A landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal has clarified the law on matrimonial property, holding that a spouse can legally sell property registered in their name without the other partner’s consent if the partner cannot prove direct or indirect financial contribution.
The decision stems from a long-running dispute in Nakuru involving the late Francis Ngata King’ori and his wife, Leah Wangui Ngata. King’ori secretly sold the family home for Sh1.1 million while Leah and their five children were still living in it, despite the couple having been married under Kikuyu customary law since 1970 and sharing a life together for more than 30 years.
The house had served as the family’s home for 17 years. Leah only discovered it had been sold when a stranger showed up at her door demanding rent and threatening eviction. Shocked by the revelation, she moved to court seeking to block the sale, arguing that the home was matrimonial property built through their shared life and efforts.
The High Court initially ruled in her favour, declaring the sale fraudulent and briefly restoring the property to the family. However, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision, setting aside the earlier judgment and reinstating the buyer’s ownership.
In its ruling, the appellate court emphasized that marriage, long occupation of a home, and emotional attachment do not automatically create ownership rights over property. Instead, a spouse claiming an interest must provide evidence of financial contribution toward the purchase, development, or improvement of the property.
Judges noted that such contribution can be proved through receipts, bank statements, mortgage payments, or documented income linked to the acquisition of the home.
Leah told the court that she supported the family through farming, small businesses, and domestic work over the years. However, the court found that there was no documentary proof directly linking her efforts to the purchase or financing of the property.
As a result, the judges concluded that King’ori had the legal authority to sell the house without seeking her consent since it was registered in his name and no beneficial interest had been established.
The ruling was not unanimous. One of the appellate judges dissented, warning that strict reliance on documented financial contribution risks ignoring the reality of many marriages, where one partner’s work — especially unpaid domestic labour and informal economic activity — may not leave a paper trail but still supports the family’s welfare.
The judgment is expected to influence future matrimonial property disputes by reinforcing the importance of documentation in proving ownership claims.
