A photo capturing an empty courtroom bench during a judiciary session. IMAGE| The Judiciary of Kenya
In Summary:
- A man facing potential imprisonment received temporary relief from the Court of Appeal after his ex-wife, now remarried in the United States, sued him for Ksh 25 million following the dissolution of their marriage.
- Documents reveal the couple married in 1998, had three children, and divorced in 2014. The man contends that his ex-wife left him and remarried in the US before returning to claim half his Ksh 50 million property.
The Court of Appeal provided a temporary reprieve to a man facing potential jail time after being sued by his ex-wife for Ksh 25 million. The lawsuit ensued following the dissolution of their marriage, as reported on Friday, February 15.
According to court documents, the couple married in November 1998 and had three children before divorcing in May 2014. The man found himself embroiled in legal turmoil when his former wife sought half of his property, estimated at Ksh 50 million.
The man asserted that his ex-wife remarried in the United States before returning to demand a share of his wealth, a claim disputed by the man. Additionally, he argued that some of the assets were owned by his children and third-party members, raising doubts about her entitlement to the assets.
In response to the lawsuit, the man appealed, contending that his ex-wife had not contributed to the creation or acquisition of the wealth in question. He also expressed his inability to raise the required Ksh 25 million within the stipulated six-month period.
“He additionally mentioned that even in the event of raising and remitting the Ksh25 million, the 1st respondent (his wife) wouldn’t be capable of reimbursing it in case the appeal proves successful,” as per excerpts from the court records.
The woman’s legal team argued against the man’s appeal, citing procedural errors in the filing. They insisted that the appeal be dismissed due to a delay in filing.
However, the man’s lawyer countered, affirming that the appeal was filed within the specified time frame. They attributed the delay to administrative issues beyond their control.
“The explanation provided by the applicant’s attorney regarding the validity of the appeal is acceptable to us. The appeal notice was submitted promptly, within six days of the contested judgment’s delivery. The applicant’s attorney bore no influence over the Deputy Registrar’s timeline for endorsing the appeal notice,” ruled the judge.
The Court of Appeal judge, Daniel Musinga, ruled in favor of the man, acknowledging the delay as a procedural fault of the Deputy Registrar rather than the man’s legal team.
Consequently, the court granted temporary relief to the man, suspending the earlier judgment until the appeal process concludes.