The High Court in Narok has ruled that years of raising children, managing a household and supporting a partner can entitle a person to a share of property even in the absence of a marriage certificate.
In his judgment, Justice Charles Kariuki held that a marriage can be presumed from long-term cohabitation and the conduct of the parties.
This is particularly the case when children are born within the union, and the couple presents themselves as husband and wife.
The court further found that contribution under Kenya’s Matrimonial Property Act extends beyond direct financial input.
Justice Kariuki noted that domestic work, childcare, companionship, management of the family home and support offered to a spouse’s economic activities are all forms of contribution that should be recognized when determining property rights.
“In the result, the Court finds that presumed marriage existed between the Applicant and the Respondent, proved a substantial non-monetary and indirect contribution, matrimonial property or are subject to beneficial interest; and entitled to the sought-after reliefs,” reads the ruling in parts.
“Where one spouse bears a disproportionate share of time-intensive, opportunity-limiting responsibilities (such as child-rearing and domestic labour), a modest upward adjustment is justified.”
The ruling was made in the case of FWM v JMG [2026], where the court awarded a woman a 30 percent beneficial interest in properties acquired during a relationship that lasted nearly two decades.
The dispute arose after the relationship collapsed in 2010, with the man insisting that no valid marriage or marriage certificate existed and arguing that all property was registered solely in his name.
He further maintained that the applicant had made no financial contribution towards the acquisition or development of the properties.
However, the court rejected the argument that absence of a marriage certificate or sole registration of property could defeat a claim where evidence shows long-term cohabitation and family life.
Also Read: Court Rules Dowry‑Based Customs Cannot Block Fathers from Their Children
Court Affirms Non-Monetary Contributions in Matrimonial Property Case
In its judgment, the court relied on the doctrine of the presumption of marriage.
It cited long cohabitation, the existence of three children, and the parties’ public conduct as sufficient proof of a marital relationship on the balance of probabilities.
According to court documents, the woman lived with the respondent for about 20 years, during which they raised three children and acquired property in Narok.
Although she did not produce documentary evidence of financial contribution, she argued that her role in childcare, domestic work, and support for family life enabled the accumulation of wealth.
The court found that under Sections 7 and 2 of the Matrimonial Property Act, non-monetary contributions—including domestic work, childcare, companionship, and family management—are legally recognized and carry equal weight in determining ownership rights.
The judge noted that courts must take a “realistic and gender-sensitive approach” when assessing domestic contribution, especially where such work spans the entire duration of a relationship.
“Domestic labour and child-rearing are invaluable contributions and must be recognized in determining property rights,” the court held.
The court further held that property acquired during cohabitation is subject to a rebuttable presumption of trust under Section 14 of the Matrimonial Property Act, unless the registered owner proves otherwise.
Also Read: Court Explains the Legal Mistake That Invalidated a KSh200,000 Conviction
Judge Issues Permanent Injunction and Orders 30% Property Share
In its final orders, the court declared the disputed properties to be matrimonial property and found that the applicant had a beneficial interest.
The judge awarded her a 30 percent share, while the respondent retained 70 percent. The court said the ratio reflected the length of the union, caregiving responsibilities, and the enabling role of domestic labour in wealth creation.
The court also ordered the parties to agree on valuation and distribution within 90 days or, alternatively, to provide compensation for properties that had already been sold or transferred.
A permanent injunction was issued restraining any interference with the remaining property pending full settlement.
The court emphasized that while equality in marriage is recognized under Article 45 of the Constitution, division of property is not automatic and must reflect proven contribution—both financial and non-financial.
