Nairobi, Kenya – The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal filed by businessman GKW challenging a High Court decision that allowed his former wife, RNK, to amend her pleadings in a matrimonial property case to include two companies allegedly holding family assets.
In a judgment delivered on September 12, 2025, by Justices Daniel Musinga, Mumbi Ngugi, and Francis Tuiyott, the appellate court held that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting the amendment, noting that the inclusion of the companies was necessary for the just resolution of the dispute. See full judgement; https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1475/eng@2025-09-12
The case stems from a long-running battle between the estranged couple over the division of matrimonial property. RNK sought to amend her originating summons to add the companies on the basis that some matrimonial assets, including the family home, were registered in their names. The High Court had allowed the amendment in 2017, prompting GKW to appeal.
Senior Counsel Dr. Gibson Kamau Kuria, representing GKW, argued that section 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act, 1882, applied only to disputes between spouses and could not extend to companies. He contended that the amendment changed the nature of the case, caused undue delay, and amounted to piercing the corporate veil without evidence of fraud.
In response, RNK’s lawyer, Ms. Ndirangu, submitted that the companies were essentially family vehicles controlled by the spouses and that excluding them would defeat the purpose of the proceedings. She relied on past decisions, including PWK v JKG and Muthembwa v Muthembwa, which recognized the court’s power to inquire into company ownership where matrimonial property was intertwined.
The appellate court agreed with the respondent, emphasizing that amendments are intended to bring out the real issues in controversy and should be freely allowed unless they cause irremediable prejudice. Citing its earlier decision in Lacheka Lubricants Ltd v Chanandin, the court stressed that it would be unjust to deny relief merely because assets were registered in companies controlled by spouses.
“Section 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act gives the court wide powers to inquire into the company and the issue of ownership of property and to make orders as justice may demand,” the judges stated.
Finding no misdirection or procedural error, the Court of Appeal dismissed GKW’s appeal with costs, affirming that matrimonial property disputes can properly involve companies where beneficial ownership is contested.
This ruling further develops Kenya’s matrimonial property jurisprudence, clarifying that courts may pierce the corporate veil in appropriate cases to prevent injustice in marital disputes.
