Kenya’s most prominent marathon runner of all time Eliud Kipchoge has been dragged to court over a multi-million property dispute.
Kipchoge has been dragged to court together with three others over the ownership of a property valued at Sh. 100 million.
According to court documents, the suit has been filed by Joyce Kimosop who is the wife of athlete Daniel Komen. She alleges that Komen sold the multi-million property to among others Kipchoge without consulting her. She says that the property was part of their matrimonial property.
Apart from Kipchoge, Komen’s wife has also dragged to court businessmen Felix Kipchoge Lagat and Peter Kipsigei Lagat.
The property is the agricultural land measuring 200 acres that is registered as Southern East of Eldoret Municipality in Uasin Gishu County L.R No. 8638/26.
Mrs. Komen, who is a senior lecturer at Moi University in Eldoret, claims that the land was sold at just Sh. 10 million even though it is valued at Sh. 100 million.
“My husband has never mentioned it to me that he had sold the land, leave alone the intention to sell the property,” she says in the documents before court.
Why no airline will allow you to board for the US if you’re heavily pregnant
Mrs Komen tells the court that the disputed property was acquired and developed by joint efforts of the couple during their marriage. It was however registered in the name of her husband in the trust of the family.
“I took various loans to fund the purchase and development of the property, which was the only family home as I married Komen at a time when he had no place to call home,” Komen’s wife states in court documents.
In his response, the husband, Komen, has agreed that he sold the land to Kipchoge and the other three individuals. However, he says that his wife consented to the sale of the land.
Komen adds that he sold to former World marathon record holder Brimin Kirputo jointly 120 acres and not 150 acres as alleged by his wife. He sold another 50 acres to the 3rd defendant and 20 acres to the 4th defendant.
But his wife has asked the court to determine whether the purported transaction conducted on February 8, 2012, between her husband and other defendants is a clear violation of her constitutional rights.
She also wants the court to determine whether the purported transaction is a nullity for violating clear provisions of the law.
In addition, she wants the court to determine whether, as a spouse, she is entitled to an equal share of the property in question, and whether she is entitled to costs and any other reliefs.
