This is an appeal from the High Court on property adjustment. The Petitioner and the Respondent were divorced in the local court where the Petitioner was ordered to pay the Respondent K15, 000,000 (unrebased) compensation in monthly instalments of K500, 000 (unrebased) with effect from 30 November 2007. The Petitioner was also granted custody of the couple's three children, with the Respondent retaining her right of access. The couple were also ordered to share their household goods equally.
The Petitioner then appealed to the Subordinate and consequently to the High Court on grounds that the lower courts did not consider the circumstances that led to the divorce when allocating property.
1. In matters of property adjustment, convenience of either of the parties is immaterial.
2. It is also settled that it does not matter whether or not both spouses contributed financially or materially to the acquisition or development of the family assets; and that a party to the marriage does contribute either materially or in kind to those assets.
3. It is also settled that blameworthiness as to the cause of the divorce is not a material consideration when deciding property adjustment; but the court has power, after divorce, to reallocate family assets between the parties, taking into account all circumstances of each particular case.
4. There should be no family property which is too small for the court to share between a former husband and wife after divorce. If the physical structures cannot be shared, for whatever reason, then the couple should share the market values of the properties.