A high-stakes matrimonial property dispute involving top athletes has taken a dramatic courtroom turn over contested documents and land ownership.
A legal battle over a Sh100 million matrimonial property dispute between former 3,000-meter world record holder Daniel Komen and his estranged wife, Joyce Kimosop Komen, took an unforeseen direction when the Eldoret High Court refused to admit additional documents as evidence. The dispute has also drawn in marathon legend Eliud Kipchoge.
During the proceedings, the presiding judge stood down Ms. Komen, a senior lecturer and head of the Management Science Department at Moi University, after she attempted to submit four extra documents during her testimony. The court ruled that a decision on the admissibility of these documents would be made at a later date.
Ms. Komen is seeking to nullify sale agreements related to their 200-acre matrimonial land southeast of Eldoret City, arguing that the property was sold without her knowledge or consent. Court filings indicate that the land, valued at Sh100 million, was allegedly sold for only Sh10 million to Kipchoge and three other buyers: Brimin Kipruto, the 2008 Olympic 3,000-meter steeplechase champion, Felix Kipchoge Lagat, and Peter Kipsigei Lagat.
In court documents, Ms. Komen expressed shock upon learning that the land had been sold at only 10 percent of its actual value. She claims to have made significant financial contributions toward both the purchase and development of the property, including taking multiple loans to support its acquisition.
Ms. Komen stated that she had married Komen when he had no property, and she had invested heavily in securing a home for their family. She insisted that she was never consulted about the sale of the land and argued that the transaction should be declared void.
However, Komen contends that he is the sole registered owner of the 89.03-hectare property (L.R No 8638/26). While he acknowledges that the couple jointly applied for a loan to settle part of the land’s purchase price, he maintains that Ms. Komen’s contributions were limited to development-related expenses rather than ownership.
Komen also asserts that the sale was conducted with his wife’s knowledge and consent, a claim she has denied.
Legal representatives for Kipchoge and the other buyers have opposed the inclusion of the contested documents, arguing that Ms. Komen was neither present during the sale agreement signing nor mentioned in any related records. Efforts to settle the matter through mediation were unsuccessful, leading to the continuation of court proceedings.
