MPs deny women equal share of property in divorces

A couple argues: Male MPs ganged up to remove provisions in Matrimonial Property Bill that would have enabled divorced couples to share property equally irrespective of the contribution of each spouse. Photo/FILE 

By BD REPORTER

Posted  Tuesday, November 12  2013 at  21:39

In Summary

• The matter was put to vote after a deadlock over whether to have matrimonial property shared according to the contribution of each spouse.
• With 34 women MPs in the chamber of the National Assembly, the provision was defeated 87-28 in favour of an amendment proposed by Justice and Legal Affairs Committee chairman Samuel Chepkong’a. Three MPs abstained.
• MPs also pushed through another amendment that categorised matrimonial property as “matrimonial homes, household goods and effects in those homes and any other immoveable or movable property jointly owned by both spouses.”

Male MPs last evening ganged up to throw out provisions in the Matrimonial Property Bill that would have enabled divorced couples to share property equally irrespective of the contribution of each spouse.

The matter was put to vote after a deadlock over whether to have matrimonial property shared according to the contribution of each spouse.

With 34 women MPs in the chamber of the National Assembly, the provision was defeated 87-28 in favour of an amendment proposed by Justice and Legal Affairs Committee chairman Samuel Chepkong’a. Three MPs abstained.

READ: Bill provides for equal sharing of marital property

The Bill is now headed to State House for President Uhuru Kenyatta to give his assent.

MPs also pushed through another amendment that categorised matrimonial property as “matrimonial homes, household goods and effects in those homes and any other immoveable or movable property jointly owned by both spouses.”

The heated debate Tuesday evening was marked by an unusually high number of MPs in the House unlike other days when more technical Bills go through the Third Reading.

While couples will share property according to their contributions, the burden of liabilities - loans and debts - will be borne equally as long as they are “for the benefit of the marriage.”

“If there is any property to be divided, it must be in accordance with the share of each spouse’s contribution to the matrimonial property. It ensures that no one person just sits and waits for the other person,” said Mr Chepkong’a.

James Nyikal (Seme, ODM) was among MPs who argued that property ought not to be shared equally irrespective of the spouses’ contribution.

“If it is taken for granted that just being in the marriage everything will be shared equally and there’ll be no question, I don’t think that will be fair,” said Dr Nyikal.

Millie Odhiambo (Mbita, ODM) argued that equal sharing was a constitutional principle and the contribution of each partner should not be taken into consideration.

“The Constitution is very clear about equal rights before, during and after dissolution of a marriage. It is not really anything we have a choice about unless if it is calling for the amendment of the Constitution,” she said.

Zainab Chidzuga (Kwale County) argued that contributions by spouses was not just financial or material.

“A woman will clean her husband’s house, warm his bath water and many other things that should be considered as contribution to enable her get an equal share of any matrimonial property),” she said.