SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

MURIUKI MARIGI vs RICHARD MARIGI MURIUKI & 2 OTHERS [1997] KECA 386 (KLR)

[1997] KECA 386 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
386
Citation
[1997] KECA 386 (KLR)
Decided
16 May 1997
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from High Court rulingCoramR.O. KWACH, G.S. PALL, S.E.O. BOSIRE, AG. JUDGE OF APPEAL
Holding

The respondents' claim is dismissed as they do not have a cause of action in law. The award rendered by the arbitration panel is set aside as a nullity.

Facts

The appellant, Muriuki Marigi, is the registered owner of a parcel of land known as Magutu/Gatei/153. The respondents, Richard Marigi Muriuki and Lydia Njoki Muriuki, are his children. The third respondent, Samuel Muriuki, is a minor with Richard Marigi Muriuki as his next friend. The respondents claimed a designated share of the land based on customary law rights, while the appellant claimed absolute and indefeasible rights as the registered proprietor.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents have any claim under customary law rights recognized by the Registered Land Act
  2. Whether customary law rights are overriding interests under the Act

Reasoning

The Court held that customary law rights are not recognized as overriding interests under the Registered Land Act and that the respondents' claim was based on inchoate rights that are not legally enforceable.

Outcome

The award is set aside and the original suit is struck out with costs.

Orders

  • Set aside the award rendered by the arbitration panel
  • Strike out the original suit with costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Registered Land Act, Cap 300 Laws of Kenya
  • Judicature Act
Cases cited (3)
  • Obiero -vs- Opiyo & Others [1972] EA 227
  • Esiroyo -vs- Esiroyo & Another [1973] EA 388
  • Law of Succession Act, Cap 160 Laws of Kenya
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case