Page 2 of 2
1. I delivered a Judgment in this matter on 19/09/2025 in which I made declarations in respect to the parties’ division of their matrimonial property subsequent to their divorce in the year 2018. Of relevance to this Ruling is the following portion of the declarations I made:
“53. In the premises, I rule and order as follows:
i) A declaration is hereby made that for purposes of the now dissolved marriage between the Applicant and the Respondent, considering the direct and indirect contributions made by the parties in acquisition and development thereof, the following 3 assets constitute matrimonial property acquired and/or developed during the pendency of the marriage, in which both the Applicant and the Respondent have beneficial interest, and in which the Respondent, David Kimisik Kirui, is entitled to a share of 70 per cent of the aggregate value thereof, while the Applicant, Rael Chepleting Kirui, is entitled to 30 per cent:
a) parcel of land known as Nandi/Kipsigak/1796 measuring 1.37 Hectares, currently registered in the sole name of the Respondent.
b) 3.96 acres portion of the parcel of land known as Nandi/Kipsigak/307, allocated to the Respondent in Kapsabet SPMC Succession Cause No. 114 of 2019-Estate of Kiboson Arap Barno, as indicated in the Amended Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 7/05/2021.
c) Tractor described as registration number KTCB 037S, (formerly KAN 271E).
ii) I now give the parties a period of thirty (30) days to discuss and attempt an amicable settlement on the manner in which they wish to divide and/or share the 3 properties listed above, in accordance with (i) and (ii) above . Should the parties fail to reach a settlement within the set timelines, unless the same is extended, the Court shall be at liberty to proceed to divide the property accordingly between them.”
2. The matter then came up in Court for Mention on successive dates for purposes of recording a settlement on the implementation of the 70:30 division of properties issue but it became apparent that no progress was being made thereon. With this realization, and upon the parties’ invitation, I directed them to file respective Affidavits presenting their proposed modes of applying the 70:30 formula.
3. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent (the former husband), filed the Affidavit he swore on 5/02/2026, while the Applicant (the former wife), filed the Affidavit she swore on 9/03/2026.
4. In his Affidavit filed through his Advocates, Messrs R.M. Wafula & & Co ., the Respondent deponed that he commissioned a valuation of the 3 subject assets, which established the total aggregate value thereof at Kshs 25,603,000/- made up as follows: matrimonial home, Nandi/Kipsigak/307 at Kshs 16,622,000/-, parcel of land Nandi/Kipsigak/1796 at Kshs. 8,281,000/-, and Tractor Reg No. KTCB 037S at Kshs 700,000/-. He exhibited a copy of the Valuation Report dated 14/01/2026 prepared by one Dean Dennis Auma for Messrs Acre Point Realtors Limited , who described himself as a Registered and Practicing Valuer, which Report, the Respondent deponed, reveals that substantial improvements were carried out in the matrimonial home to the tune of Kshs 5,185,000/-, all financed by himself. He deponed further that there exist outstanding liabilities/loans in respect to the properties which he continues to service amounting to Kshs 845,945/- as follows; Absa Bank at Kshs 719,816.75, KCB at Kshs. 1,800,000, and Equity Bank at Kshs. 300,000 /- . He annexed copies of bank statements and urged that after accounting for the value of improvements and outstanding liabilities, the net value available for the distribution is approximately Kshs 19,366,900/-, which means that the Applicant’s 30% share is Kshs. 5,810,070/- and his is Kshs. 13,556,830/-. He then proposed that in an effort to give effect to the Judgment and bring the matter to a just and expeditious conclusion, he proposes to transfer to the Applicant one (1) acre of land comprised in the parcel of land Nandi/Kipsigak/1796 which portion is planted with mature tea, is income-generating, and has an open market value of Kshs 7,000,000/-.
5. On her part, the Applicant, in her Affidavit filed through her Advocates, Messrs Mukabane & Kagunza & Co ., deponed that the liabilities alleged by the Respondent to amount to Kshs 5,185,000/- in respect to the matrimonial home in Nandi/Kipsigak/307 , are neither supported by audited loan statements showing the purpose of each facility, the amount supplied specifically to matrimonial development, and the outstanding balances certified by the lenders, and that therefore, no documentary nexus has been demonstrated between the alleged loans and improvement of the properties. She therefore contended that based on the Respondent’s own valuation of Kshs 25,603,000/-, her 30% share is Kshs 7,680,900/-. Regarding the Respondent’s offer to excise and transfer to her one (1) acre from the parcel of land, Nandi/Kipsigak/1796 , she termed it as inequitable, impractical, and contrary to the Judgment insofar as it transfers to her a portion of the parcel of land subject to sub-division processes, mutation, Land Control Board consent and conveyancing costs, and does not also factor access, usability or independent valuation of the portion. She asserted further that the tractor also forms part of the matrimonial property and must also be factored in the aggregate valuation, and that no evidence has been tendered to show depreciation, encumbrance or disposal. She then reiterated that based on the Respondent’s own valuation, her 30% share is Kshs 7,680,900/- and suggested that the Respondent can satisfy the same by either paying her that amount within a time fixed by the Court, or transferring a property equivalent in value to the said amount as per independent valuation to be agreed upon by both parties. The rest of the matters deponed are basically, reiterations of the arguments already advanced.
Determination
6. It is evident that the Applicant, who is the one who brought the suit in the first place, instead of presenting her own proposal on how the 70:30 division of properties is to be implemented, and perhaps, also procure valuations, opted to simply wait for the Respondent to present his and then “poke holes” therein. This is not what the Court directed the parties to do. Each was to present his/her separate proposals and support it with reasons, for the Court’s consideration. It is possible that the Applicant may have operated as she did in a bid to avoid valuation costs. Since she however also then based her arguments on the same Valuation presented by the Respondent, it is that Valuation that will now serve as the foundation for my determination.
7. In doing so, I may say that the although the Respondent purported to reduce the aggregate value of the properties estimated at Kshs 25,603,000/- in the Report by deducting therefrom alleged improvements made by him at Kshs 5,185,000/- and alleged loan outstanding liabilities at Kshs 845,945/- to arrive at an alleged net value of approximately Kshs 19,366,900/-, what he forgets is that in apportioning the matrimonial properties at the 70:30, the Court had already considered the parties’ respective contributions, including who between them has been shouldering liabilities such as loans used in improving the properties. In any event, I agree with the Applicant that the figures alleged by the Respondent as constituting the values to be factored are clearly speculative as they are neither supported by evidence that the loans were taken specifically for the purpose of the alleged improvements, and neither are they certified or verified by any known expert. I will not therefore accept the Respondent’s invitation to take into account his unilateral reduction of the value of the matrimonial properties which value, his own Valuation Report already established.
8. The aggregate figure of Kshs 25,603,000/- alleged by the Respondent and accepted by the Applicant also does not seem to accurately tally with the calculations appearing in the Valuation Report as it appears to differ slightly. Nonetheless, as both parties have embraced that figure as the aggregate value of the 3 matrimonial properties, so be it. I will adopt it. I therefore agree that the 30% share that the Applicant is entitled to is Kshs 7,680,900/-, which sum I will use my discretion to round off to the flat figure of Kshs 8,000,000/-.
Final Orders
9. Doing the best I can, I find the best settlement option for implementing the 70:30 formula to be as follows, which I so order and direct:
a) In settlement of the Applicant’s 30% share of the matrimonial properties, which is now fixed at Kshs 8,000,000/-. the Respondent shall transfer one (1) acre portion out of the parcel of land known as Nandi/Kipsigak/1796 (mother title), to the Applicant under the following terms and conditions:
i) Within a period of thirty (30) days from the date hereof, the Respondent shall procure and file in Court, and also share with the Applicant, a Valuation Report establishing the value of such one (1) acre portion of land.
ii) In the event that the value established falls short of the sum of Kshs 8,000,000/- aforesaid, then the Respondent shall top up the balance and pay it to the Applicant so as to meet the Kshs 8,000,000/- threshold.
iii) All processes, exercises or steps pertaining to excision of the one (1) acre portion of land out of the mother title, and/or sub-division, excision, mutation, payment of taxes (including stamp duty), Land Control Board, legal processes, procuring of title deed and/or any other title document, and all such like processes shall be undertaken by the Respondent. In doing so, the Respondent and/or his Advocates shall, as much as possible work closely with the Applicant or her Advocates, and shall at all times, in writing , at not less than fortnight intervals, keep the Respondent or her Advocates fully informed of the progress of the above exercise. Where any challenge is met in the process, the Respondent must immediately communicate the same, in writing , to the Applicant or her Advocates.
iv) All expenses pertaining to excision of the one (1) acre portion of land out of the mother title, and/or sub-division, excision, mutation, stamp duty, taxes (including stamp duty), Land Control Board, legal fees, conveyancing, procuring of title deed and/or any other title document, and all such like and/all consequential expenses shall be borne by the Respondent.
v) As an alternative mode of settlement, the Respondent may or shall be at liberty to, instead, pay to the Applicant the said sum of Kshs 8,000,000/- in full and final settlement.
vi) Save for (i), all the above must be concluded by the Respondent within a period of eight (8) months from the date hereof, upon expiry whereof the amount of Kshs 8,000,000/-, shall be converted into a Decree in favour of the Applicant with interest at Court rates from the date of such expiry, and shall then become subject to execution as a Court Decree, save that the Respondent shall be at liberty to seek an extension or extensions from the Court, and for postponement of the interest accrual, as the case may be, should he have justifiable grounds to do so.
b) This matter shall be mentioned periodically as the Court may direct, for the Court to be appraised of the progress or status of compliance with the above orders.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT ELDORET THIS 17 TH DAY OF JULY 2026
……………..……..
WANANDA JOHN R. ANURO
JUDGE
Delivered in the presence of:
Mr. Luban’ga h/b for Mr. Kagunza for the Applicant
N/A for the Respondent
Court Assistant: Brian Kimathi
1. I delivered a Judgment in this matter on 19/09/2025 in which I made declarations in respect to the parties’ division of their matrimonial property subsequent to their divorce in the year 2018. Of relevance to this Ruling is the following portion of the declarations I made:
“53. In the premises, I rule and order as follows:
i) A declaration is hereby made that for purposes of the now dissolved marriage between the Applicant and the Respondent, considering the direct and indirect contributions made by the parties in acquisition and development thereof, the following 3 assets constitute matrimonial property acquired and/or developed during the pendency of the marriage, in which both the Applicant and the Respondent have beneficial interest, and in which the Respondent, David Kimisik Kirui, is entitled to a share of 70 per cent of the aggregate value thereof, while the Applicant, Rael Chepleting Kirui, is entitled to 30 per cent:
a) parcel of land known as Nandi/Kipsigak/1796 measuring 1.37 Hectares, currently registered in the sole name of the Respondent.
b) 3.96 acres portion of the parcel of land known as Nandi/Kipsigak/307, allocated to the Respondent in Kapsabet SPMC Succession Cause No. 114 of 2019-Estate of Kiboson Arap Barno, as indicated in the Amended Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 7/05/2021.
c) Tractor described as registration number KTCB 037S, (formerly KAN 271E).
ii) I now give the parties a period of thirty (30) days to discuss and attempt an amicable settlement on the manner in which they wish to divide and/or share the 3 properties listed above, in accordance with (i) and (ii) above . Should the parties fail to reach a settlement within the set timelines, unless the same is extended, the Court shall be at liberty to proceed to divide the property accordingly between them.”
2. The matter then came up in Court for Mention on successive dates for purposes of recording a settlement on the implementation of the 70:30 division of properties issue but it became apparent that no progress was being made thereon. With this realization, and upon the parties’ invitation, I directed them to file respective Affidavits presenting their proposed modes of applying the 70:30 formula.
3. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent (the former husband), filed the Affidavit he swore on 5/02/2026, while the Applicant (the former wife), filed the Affidavit she swore on 9/03/2026.
4. In his Affidavit filed through his Advocates, Messrs R.M. Wafula & & Co ., the Respondent deponed that he commissioned a valuation of the 3 subject assets, which established the total aggregate value thereof at Kshs 25,603,000/- made up as follows: matrimonial home, Nandi/Kipsigak/307 at Kshs 16,622,000/-, parcel of land Nandi/Kipsigak/1796 at Kshs. 8,281,000/-, and Tractor Reg No. KTCB 037S at Kshs 700,000/-. He exhibited a copy of the Valuation Report dated 14/01/2026 prepared by one Dean Dennis Auma for Messrs Acre Point Realtors Limited , who described himself as a Registered and Practicing Valuer, which Report, the Respondent deponed, reveals that substantial improvements were carried out in the matrimonial home to the tune of Kshs 5,185,000/-, all financed by himself. He deponed further that there exist outstanding liabilities/loans in respect to the properties which he continues to service amounting to Kshs 845,945/- as follows; Absa Bank at Kshs 719,816.75, KCB at Kshs. 1,800,000, and Equity Bank at Kshs. 300,000 /- . He annexed copies of bank statements and urged that after accounting for the value of improvements and outstanding liabilities, the net value available for the distribution is approximately Kshs 19,366,900/-, which means that the Applicant’s 30% share is Kshs. 5,810,070/- and his is Kshs. 13,556,830/-. He then proposed that in an effort to give effect to the Judgment and bring the matter to a just and expeditious conclusion, he proposes to transfer to the Applicant one (1) acre of land comprised in the parcel of land Nandi/Kipsigak/1796 which portion is planted with mature tea, is income-generating, and has an open market value of Kshs 7,000,000/-.
5. On her part, the Applicant, in her Affidavit filed through her Advocates, Messrs Mukabane & Kagunza & Co ., deponed that the liabilities alleged by the Respondent to amount to Kshs 5,185,000/- in respect to the matrimonial home in Nandi/Kipsigak/307 , are neither supported by audited loan statements showing the purpose of each facility, the amount supplied specifically to matrimonial development, and the outstanding balances certified by the lenders, and that therefore, no documentary nexus has been demonstrated between the alleged loans and improvement of the properties. She therefore contended that based on the Respondent’s own valuation of Kshs 25,603,000/-, her 30% share is Kshs 7,680,900/-. Regarding the Respondent’s offer to excise and transfer to her one (1) acre from the parcel of land, Nandi/Kipsigak/1796 , she termed it as inequitable, impractical, and contrary to the Judgment insofar as it transfers to her a portion of the parcel of land subject to sub-division processes, mutation, Land Control Board consent and conveyancing costs, and does not also factor access, usability or independent valuation of the portion. She asserted further that the tractor also forms part of the matrimonial property and must also be factored in the aggregate valuation, and that no evidence has been tendered to show depreciation, encumbrance or disposal. She then reiterated that based on the Respondent’s own valuation, her 30% share is Kshs 7,680,900/- and suggested that the Respondent can satisfy the same by either paying her that amount within a time fixed by the Court, or transferring a property equivalent in value to the said amount as per independent valuation to be agreed upon by both parties. The rest of the matters deponed are basically, reiterations of the arguments already advanced.
Determination
6. It is evident that the Applicant, who is the one who brought the suit in the first place, instead of presenting her own proposal on how the 70:30 division of properties is to be implemented, and perhaps, also procure valuations, opted to simply wait for the Respondent to present his and then “poke holes” therein. This is not what the Court directed the parties to do. Each was to present his/her separate proposals and support it with reasons, for the Court’s consideration. It is possible that the Applicant may have operated as she did in a bid to avoid valuation costs. Since she however also then based her arguments on the same Valuation presented by the Respondent, it is that Valuation that will now serve as the foundation for my determination.
7. In doing so, I may say that the although the Respondent purported to reduce the aggregate value of the properties estimated at Kshs 25,603,000/- in the Report by deducting therefrom alleged improvements made by him at Kshs 5,185,000/- and alleged loan outstanding liabilities at Kshs 845,945/- to arrive at an alleged net value of approximately Kshs 19,366,900/-, what he forgets is that in apportioning the matrimonial properties at the 70:30, the Court had already considered the parties’ respective contributions, including who between them has been shouldering liabilities such as loans used in improving the properties. In any event, I agree with the Applicant that the figures alleged by the Respondent as constituting the values to be factored are clearly speculative as they are neither supported by evidence that the loans were taken specifically for the purpose of the alleged improvements, and neither are they certified or verified by any known expert. I will not therefore accept the Respondent’s invitation to take into account his unilateral reduction of the value of the matrimonial properties which value, his own Valuation Report already established.
8. The aggregate figure of Kshs 25,603,000/- alleged by the Respondent and accepted by the Applicant also does not seem to accurately tally with the calculations appearing in the Valuation Report as it appears to differ slightly. Nonetheless, as both parties have embraced that figure as the aggregate value of the 3 matrimonial properties, so be it. I will adopt it. I therefore agree that the 30% share that the Applicant is entitled to is Kshs 7,680,900/-, which sum I will use my discretion to round off to the flat figure of Kshs 8,000,000/-.
Final Orders
9. Doing the best I can, I find the best settlement option for implementing the 70:30 formula to be as follows, which I so order and direct:
a) In settlement of the Applicant’s 30% share of the matrimonial properties, which is now fixed at Kshs 8,000,000/-. the Respondent shall transfer one (1) acre portion out of the parcel of land known as Nandi/Kipsigak/1796 (mother title), to the Applicant under the following terms and conditions:
i) Within a period of thirty (30) days from the date hereof, the Respondent shall procure and file in Court, and also share with the Applicant, a Valuation Report establishing the value of such one (1) acre portion of land.
ii) In the event that the value established falls short of the sum of Kshs 8,000,000/- aforesaid, then the Respondent shall top up the balance and pay it to the Applicant so as to meet the Kshs 8,000,000/- threshold.
iii) All processes, exercises or steps pertaining to excision of the one (1) acre portion of land out of the mother title, and/or sub-division, excision, mutation, payment of taxes (including stamp duty), Land Control Board, legal processes, procuring of title deed and/or any other title document, and all such like processes shall be undertaken by the Respondent. In doing so, the Respondent and/or his Advocates shall, as much as possible work closely with the Applicant or her Advocates, and shall at all times, in writing , at not less than fortnight intervals, keep the Respondent or her Advocates fully informed of the progress of the above exercise. Where any challenge is met in the process, the Respondent must immediately communicate the same, in writing , to the Applicant or her Advocates.
iv) All expenses pertaining to excision of the one (1) acre portion of land out of the mother title, and/or sub-division, excision, mutation, stamp duty, taxes (including stamp duty), Land Control Board, legal fees, conveyancing, procuring of title deed and/or any other title document, and all such like and/all consequential expenses shall be borne by the Respondent.
v) As an alternative mode of settlement, the Respondent may or shall be at liberty to, instead, pay to the Applicant the said sum of Kshs 8,000,000/- in full and final settlement.
vi) Save for (i), all the above must be concluded by the Respondent within a period of eight (8) months from the date hereof, upon expiry whereof the amount of Kshs 8,000,000/-, shall be converted into a Decree in favour of the Applicant with interest at Court rates from the date of such expiry, and shall then become subject to execution as a Court Decree, save that the Respondent shall be at liberty to seek an extension or extensions from the Court, and for postponement of the interest accrual, as the case may be, should he have justifiable grounds to do so.
b) This matter shall be mentioned periodically as the Court may direct, for the Court to be appraised of the progress or status of compliance with the above orders.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT ELDORET THIS 17 TH DAY OF JULY 2026
……………..……..
WANANDA JOHN R. ANURO
JUDGE
Delivered in the presence of:
Mr. Luban’ga h/b for Mr. Kagunza for the Applicant
N/A for the Respondent
Court Assistant: Brian Kimathi