Gidy

🚨🚨BREAKING: COURT DECLARES HOUSEWIVES ARE NOT “JUST STAYING AT HOME” - EX-WIFE AWARDED PROPERTY, COMPANY SHARES AND BANK MONEY DESPITE HER NAME APPEARING NOWHERE In a landmark judgment in Elizabeth Wanjiku Muraguri v Cyrus Gathuku Maina, the High Court in Nairobi in has ruled that a spouse can walk away with a share of wealth acquired during marriage even where their name does not appear on title deeds, logbooks, company records or bank accounts. The husband argued that most of the assets belonged to a company where he only held 5% shares and relied on the famous corporate law principle in that a company is separate from its owners. But the court rejected the argument, holding that a spouse cannot hide behind company structures to defeat matrimonial rights. Justice Chemitei found that while the husband travelled and built businesses, the wife managed the home, raised children, provided companionship and created the stability that enabled wealth creation. The judgment now delivers a powerful warning to spouses who think property ownership is only about whose name appears on documents. The court reaffirmed that under Kenya’s Matrimonial Property Act, non-monetary contribution is equal to monetary contribution. Cooking, childcare, emotional support, managing the family and supporting a spouse’s career can legally translate into ownership rights worth millions. The court specifically held that the wife indirectly contributed to the success of Blue Bubble Homecare Products Limited and therefore deserved half of the husband’s 5% shareholding in the company together with a stake in assets linked to those shares. The judge further noted that marriage is an economic partnership and courts will increasingly look beyond paperwork to the real contribution made inside the family structure. For husbands, wives and business owners alike, the ruling is a brutal reminder that matrimonial disputes can pierce through company walls, personal accounts and privately registered assets. The court awarded the ex-wife half of the Thome property, half of the husband’s shares, half of money held in his accounts and rights over other assets acquired during the marriage. The properties are now to be divided or sold within 90 days. The message from the High Court is loud and unmistakable: if wealth was built during marriage with the support of a spouse, whether financial or domestic, Kenyan courts will treat that wealth as jointly earned, regardless of whose name appears on the paperwork. Kindly retweet/share 🙏

Yesterday, the High Court delivered a significant judgment in Petition E490/2025 (HSO & 3 Others v. ODPP & 4 Others) that will reshape Kenya's approach to adolescent sexuality and criminal law. The Court ruled that the misapplication of the Sexual Offences Act to prosecute adolescents engaged in consensual, non-coercive peer relationships violates their constitutional rights to equality, dignity, privacy, health, education and the best interest of the child. This judgment addresses a documented tension in our legal framework. While the Sexual Offences Act was enacted to shield children from sexual abuse and exploitation, it has been applied broadly against adolescents in consensual peer relationships while ignoring their evolving capacities and driving them where they cannot access sexual and reproductive health services out of fear of prosecution. The Court's directives are clear. The ODPP must publish prosecutorial guidelines distinguishing consensual peer relationships from exploitative conduct, the National Police Service must review arrest protocols and State organs must develop coordinated policies ensuring adolescents can access SRH information without fear. But we must ask the difficult questions. Against the backdrop of Kenya's escalating GBV and femicide crisis will this judgment inadvertently create loopholes that perpetrators exploit? The ODPP has previously employed diversion mechanisms in cases involving teenagers yet concerns persist about weaponization of these alternatives. The criminal justice system has failed women and girls through inadequate investigations, delayed prosecutions and impunity for perpetrators. Distinguishing consensual peer relationships from exploitation becomes so subjective that predatory conduct escapes accountability under the guise of consent. Without precise legislative safeguards, we risk creating interpretive gaps that undermine hard-won protections for children particularly girls who bear the burden of sexual violence. Who determines genuine consent among adolescents of varying maturity levels? How do we prevent this progressive protection from eroding gains in combating child sexual abuse in a country grappling with what many have called a national GBV and femicide crisis? Reform of the Sexual Offences Act remains urgent but it must be survivor-centered and grounded in the realities of GBV in Kenya. We need legislative amendments that protect juveniles from sexual violation without victimizing them for age-appropriate peer relationships while tightening enforcement against exploitation and abuse. The judgment's legacy will depend entirely on its implementation and future interpretation by courts and prosecutors. Only time will tell whether the promised guidelines will include safeguards that prevent manipulation by those who seek to exploit power imbalances. As we monitor this decision closely, one principle must remain non-negotiable, justice must protect the vulnerable not create new vulnerabilities.

😆😆😅😅

My client has been granted a divorce in record time. Hon. Terer conducts the hearing and delivers judgment on the same day,an exceptionally efficient and commendable judicial officer.This is what we call expeditious disposal of suits.Divorce should not take more than 2 months.

Divorce your husband and get deported, -The UK govt tells Nigerian women. 😂 😂 😂

🚨🚨RT WIDELY: THE COURT OF APPEAL SPEAKS: IGNORE YOUR OWN CONTRACT RULES, AND THE DISMISSAL FALLS The Court of Appeal has drawn a hard, practical line for every employer in Kenya: follow the disciplinary rules in your contract, or lose the case. In Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd v Banking Insurance & Finance Union (on behalf of Yasmin Namsi Athman), 2020 , a long-serving employee of 23 years was dismissed after approving transactions later found to be fraudulent, costing millions. The bank insisted it had complied with the Employment Act - there was a hearing, investigations, and reasons for termination. But the employee’s side pointed to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA): for negligence, the employer had to issue two written warnings before dismissal. That never happened. The real issue became stark: can an employer follow the statute but ignore its own agreed disciplinary process? The Court was not moved by the bank’s defence. It held that a CBA is binding law, automatically forming part of the employment contract, and cannot be brushed aside. The reasoning was precise: where a contract provides a stricter or clearer disciplinary pathway than the statute, that pathway must be followed. The bank’s failure to issue the mandatory warnings made the termination procedurally unfair, regardless of the seriousness of the allegations. But the Court did not excuse the employee entirely; her failure to observe internal fraud controls contributed to the loss. As a result, while the dismissal was declared unfair, compensation was reduced from 12 months to 4. The Court enforced both discipline and fairness, no shortcuts, no free passes. To the ordinary mwananchi, this decision lands where it matters - your job. It means employers cannot freestyle discipline or skip steps when things go wrong; if your contract or union agreement sets out a process, that process must be respected. Jurisprudentially, this is a sharp warning and a quiet empowerment: a warning to employers that procedural shortcuts will collapse even “strong” cases, and an empowerment to employees that the law will enforce the exact terms agreed, not just minimum standards. The implication is direct: read your contract, understand your workplace rules, and act the moment due process is ignored. In this legal climate, procedure is not a formality, it is your first line of defense. Kindly repost 🙏.

So we can comfortably say, 1. At the Supreme Court, the Mutheu Agatha is the Leading Authority on Children & the Best Interest Principle, Binding force of PRA & its interpretation ✅️ 2. At the Court of Appeal, the Prof Ngugi JA Bench decision is now the Leading Authority on Relocation of Minors out of Jurisdiction. It sets 8 Principles on that. ✅️ The Monicah Decision & the Mutheu Agatha one from the Apex Court are some of the best reasoned decisions of the Court. ✅️✅️

LSK's Statement on Mediation Practice and Advocate-Mediators.

We cant appear before laymen. Period !

Court Annexed Mediation (CAM) is a critical topic, especially in light of the Chief Justice's directive to make it mandatory for burial and family disputes. Here are some key observations regarding this approach: (a) It's important to note that cases filed in court often follow attempts at Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Parties typically engage in negotiations, informal mediation, and correspondence before involving legal counsel. The assumption that litigants are unaware of or resistant to ADR is inaccurate. (b) Most contractual agreements include ADR clauses, primarily for mediation or arbitration, which are legally enforceable. The presence of a case in court indicates significant issues requiring judicial expertise, suggesting that mediation may not always be appropriate. (c) The right to access the court is a constitutional guarantee under Article 48, which emphasizes the right to justice. The Judiciary serves as a constitutional arbiter, and it is crucial to maintain this role rather than relying solely on lay mediators for dispute resolution. (d) While the Constitution promotes ADR mechanisms in Article 159, it does not mandate them. Making mediation compulsory for all cases could contradict constitutional provisions. (e) Alternative Justice Systems (AJS), including mediation, have successfully resolved numerous cases. However, the quality of some settlements is concerning, as lay mediators may lack the necessary expertise to handle complex legal issues. Advocates, trained in law and procedures, are better suited to serve as mediators. (f) Mediator training typically requires a minimum of 40 hours, equating to just four days. This raises concerns when non-advocate mediators are tasked with mediating cases that involve pleadings drafted by qualified legal professionals who have undergone extensive training. (g) The legal profession is highly regulated, and allowing non-advocate mediators to oversee court-filed matters risks undermining this regulation and exposing the process to unqualified individuals. These observations highlight the complexities and potential challenges of implementing mandatory mediation in certain disputes.

Dear Colleagues, If you receive an email subjecting your matter to Court Annexed Mediation (CAM), please inform the CAM secretariat that they should send the P.105 of the Advocate hired to undertake the mediation in advance. Lets say no to the Judiciary accredited masqueraders without a P. 105.