You are quite right. “contribution” means monetary and non-monetary contribution and includes—
(a) domestic work and management of the matrimonial home;
(b) child care;
(c) companionship;
(d) management of family business or property; and
(e) farm work;
But there is one little section that throws confusion into everything :-
Section 7 - Ownership of matrimonial property
Subject to section 6(3), ownership of matrimonial property vests in the spouses according to the contribution of either spouse towards its acquisition, and shall be divided between the spouses if they divorce or their marriage is otherwise dissolved.
(a) domestic work and management of the matrimonial home;
(b) child care [because all the money you brought home and/or spent on the lil’ cretins grew on trees] ;
(c) companionship [because companionship only goes one way :D:D];
(d) management of family business or property; or
(e) farm work
contribute towards the ACTUAL acquisitionof matrimonial property?"
Read the provision again before you answer.
Oh, and here is the Section 6(3) that Section 7 talks about:-
(3) Despite subsection (1) [which gives examples of matrimonial property], the parties to an intended marriage may enter into an agreement before their marriage to determine their property rights.
but that is non material contribution. Does the long companionship bullshit entitle her to property which the man acquired through inheritance for example? fuȼk no!!
I believe I saw a ruling where a stay at home mother was deemed to have contributed financially to the family assets. So even if she didn’t give any hard money, and the husband paid for the house in full, she was deemed to own part of that property. So taking care of the kids, cooking, tending your home, washing your underwear comes with a steep price. I believe it was 40%. So in essence, you wife is not your slave.
yes, there was a JUDGMENT by the High Court in Nakuru. But when you consider the clear letter of the law against what we are told about the case, two problems emerge more clearly:-
The law clearly states that ownership of matrimonial property vests in the spouses according to the contribution of either spouse towards its acquisition, how did her “stay at home motherhood” contribute towards its ACTUAL acquisition?
How do you quantify the actual monetary value of “stay at home motherhood”? How do you quantify that vis-a-vis the value of all the matrimonial [read the man’s] property? How did the court then determine that the stay at home motherhood entitled her to 40% or 10% of all the matrimonial property? Stay at home motherhood is mboching more or less. Wouldn’t mboches be the most highly paid people around? Are they?
That judgment was erroneous because the judge went against the clear letter of the law. An appeal against it would be successful.
I dont see an appeal succeeding. With FIDA involved.
That may not be too complicated. Consider a situation where the wife is a college grad. The couple decide instead of her pursuing her career as an accountant, she stays home and tends the kids. One can argue her salary would be average of accountants eg 50k a month. So her contribution to the home is that 50K. 1/3 of which is towards the structure which is 15k a month, 180k a year, 1.8m 10 years, plus proportionate property value rise.
Argument that a stay at home mother is a mboch is very interesting. Consider a wealthy couple living in Runda and the husband makes 1m a month and the wife makes 30k a month. You will find her 30K will not really benefit the family much financially. Thats just money to make her nails and hair on the weekend. She will be working for the sake of it. In such instances, its better she tends the kids. And theres quite a few such families. I know a few and they are very involved, from the house. Handling farm manenos, kids, checking on the family business, even building that matrimonial home they handle contractors. All for no pay.
What if the LTD, owned by the Breadwinner, owns the matrimonial property.
Then the Breadwinner shows proof of paying the rent to the LTD company.
What happens after divorce?
Also note, the person who is not the breadwinner, does not know of the Matrimonial property up until the divorce as the Breadwinner declares his assets.
Courts have held that title alone is not enough to prove ownership. So LTD owns the title, but that doesn’t prove ownership. But if they didn’t live on the property, and she didn’t know of it, chances are she didn’t make any contribution towards. Therefore she wouldn’t have a claim for it. You can only claim what you contributed towards, like the home you live in.
Why are you misleading people on small matters of the law. A ltd liability company is an independent entity as far as the law is concerned. A director’s claim to ownership is to the extent of the percentage shareholding they hold. Fullstop. Instead advise our gullible women and children to demand a fair percentage of shareholding where assets such as matrimonial homes are registered under LTD liability company.
According to Companies Act is this possible: women and children to demand a fair percentage of shareholding of a LTD company.
Have you heard of this ever happening?
It’s got nothing to do with the companies act - it is about looking at shares as PROPERTY.
If the woman’s claim to the man’s property fits the description of matrimonial property which talked about [joint acquisition during the course of the marriage] then I can see why the woman would demand for shareholding in the company. Children? Naaaah.