The Court of Appeal has clarified that getting married does not automatically give either spouse an equal share of property acquired during the marriage.
In a recent ruling, the court said the division of matrimonial property should be based on the contribution made by each spouse, including both financial and non-financial contributions.
The decision followed a dispute over a commercial property owned by a couple who had been married for several decades.
The husband had appealed against the ruling by the High Court which had allocated him 20 percent share of the property.
He had contended that the ruling did not adequately consider his contribution financially since he had purchased the property using a loan which he had paid using his salary.
After examining the evidence presented before them, the court of appeal ruled out the previous allocation of shares and allocated 80 percent to the husband and 20 percent to the wife.
However, it is worth noting that the judges clarified that purchase of property does not automatically qualify one for getting a bigger share than the other.
What is necessary is for the court to examine the circumstances of each case to see what each of the couple has done toward the acquisition or development of the property.
Non-financial contribution also counts
The court noted that contribution to matrimonial property goes beyond who provided the money.
Non-financial contributions such as taking care of children, doing household work, providing companionship, managing the family home and supporting a family business can also be considered.
This means a spouse who did not directly contribute money towards buying a property can still have a claim based on the role they played during the marriage.
The court’s decision therefore does not establish a fixed percentage that couples should expect when matrimonial property is divided.
Instead, each dispute will be determined based on the evidence presented and the circumstances of the marriage.
The case also highlights the importance of keeping records of major financial contributions towards property, including loan documents, payment records, agreements and evidence of improvements made to a property.
For couples who eventually find themselves in a property dispute, the ruling means that claims about contribution will need to be supported by evidence.
Marriage alone, the Court of Appeal affirmed, does not automatically give either spouse an equal beneficial interest in every property acquired during the union.
