1. This court delivered a judgment on 5th June 2024, in which 8 properties were identified as jointly owned matrimonial properties. The share of each party in the respective properties was set out.
2. At paragraph 56 of the said decision, the court directed that the said properties be valued by a valuer jointly appointed by the parties. The unwritten, but nevertheless evident, expectation of this court was that the cost of such valuation would be shared by the parties. The court’s judgment included a default clause: if the parties were unable to agree, the valuation would be carried out by the government Valuer. The services of a government valuer are not free; there is a user fee. Just as with the private valuer, the court expected the parties to share the cost.
3. According to paragraph 57 of the judgment, the parties had 30 days from the publication of the valuation report to consider whether they could buy each other out. If they failed to agree in respect of all or part of the said properties, any unsold properties would be disposed of by public auction, and the proceeds would be shared in the ratio identified by the court.
4. Judging by what is stated in the Notice of Motion dated 2nd March 2026, the prayers sought, the supporting affidavit and the response by the respondent, no serious attempts were made to conclude the process. It appears to me that parties took hard stands and were unable to make progress.
5. Thus, the application dated 7th February 2026 was filed. The said application seeks, in my view, to have this court superintend the valuation process, and in respect of prayer 4 thereof, to have this court review its judgment.
6. The application is opposed. Mr Wallace Chege Kariuki, the respondent, deposed that the application was premature and an abuse of the court's process.
7. I have considered the matter carefully. What is needed is a process to resolve the property dispute and to create an environment in which the disputants can co-parent their two children without unnecessary conflict. In my view, this calls for prudence and directions that are easy to implement. Thus, with a view to implementing the judgment, I order and direct that:
i The properties identified by the court are to be valued by the government valuer, Kilifi, if that has not already been done. The costs of the valuation exercise shall be shared in the ratio identified by the court. If a party fails to contribute his/her share, it will be recovered from the proceeds of the sale of the properties. The valuation should be done within 30 days of the date hereof. The valuation report shall be shared within 7 days of the completion of the valuation exercise;
ii Within 30 days of the valuation, the claimant and the respondent shall be at liberty to buy each other out. The valuation report shall be the basis of the discussions between the parties;
iii If the parties do not agree, then whatever properties are not agreed upon will be sold by public auction and the proceeds shared in accordance with the ratio set out in the judgment, subject to any payments made to the valuer;
8. In my view, the application dated 7th February 2026 is premature. The same is dismissed. Each party will, however, bear her/his own costs.
9. This matter shall be mentioned on 16th September 2026 before Visram, J, to ascertain progress and for further directions.
10. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 24th day of June 2026.
2. At paragraph 56 of the said decision, the court directed that the said properties be valued by a valuer jointly appointed by the parties. The unwritten, but nevertheless evident, expectation of this court was that the cost of such valuation would be shared by the parties. The court’s judgment included a default clause: if the parties were unable to agree, the valuation would be carried out by the government Valuer. The services of a government valuer are not free; there is a user fee. Just as with the private valuer, the court expected the parties to share the cost.
3. According to paragraph 57 of the judgment, the parties had 30 days from the publication of the valuation report to consider whether they could buy each other out. If they failed to agree in respect of all or part of the said properties, any unsold properties would be disposed of by public auction, and the proceeds would be shared in the ratio identified by the court.
4. Judging by what is stated in the Notice of Motion dated 2nd March 2026, the prayers sought, the supporting affidavit and the response by the respondent, no serious attempts were made to conclude the process. It appears to me that parties took hard stands and were unable to make progress.
5. Thus, the application dated 7th February 2026 was filed. The said application seeks, in my view, to have this court superintend the valuation process, and in respect of prayer 4 thereof, to have this court review its judgment.
6. The application is opposed. Mr Wallace Chege Kariuki, the respondent, deposed that the application was premature and an abuse of the court's process.
7. I have considered the matter carefully. What is needed is a process to resolve the property dispute and to create an environment in which the disputants can co-parent their two children without unnecessary conflict. In my view, this calls for prudence and directions that are easy to implement. Thus, with a view to implementing the judgment, I order and direct that:
i The properties identified by the court are to be valued by the government valuer, Kilifi, if that has not already been done. The costs of the valuation exercise shall be shared in the ratio identified by the court. If a party fails to contribute his/her share, it will be recovered from the proceeds of the sale of the properties. The valuation should be done within 30 days of the date hereof. The valuation report shall be shared within 7 days of the completion of the valuation exercise;
ii Within 30 days of the valuation, the claimant and the respondent shall be at liberty to buy each other out. The valuation report shall be the basis of the discussions between the parties;
iii If the parties do not agree, then whatever properties are not agreed upon will be sold by public auction and the proceeds shared in accordance with the ratio set out in the judgment, subject to any payments made to the valuer;
8. In my view, the application dated 7th February 2026 is premature. The same is dismissed. Each party will, however, bear her/his own costs.
9. This matter shall be mentioned on 16th September 2026 before Visram, J, to ascertain progress and for further directions.
10. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 24th day of June 2026.