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

MURIUKI MARIGI v RICHARD MARIGI MURIUKI & 2 others [1997] KECA 81 (KLR)

[1997] KECA 81 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
81
Citation
[1997] KECA 81 (KLR)
Decided
16 May 1997
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the High Court of Kenya at NyeriCoramR. O. KWACH, G. S. PALL, S. E. O. BOSIRE
Holding

The respondents' claim is dismissed as they did not have a cause of action in law. The award is set aside and the original suit is struck out with costs.

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, claim a designated share of the land based on customary law rights. The appellant disputes the claim and moved to set aside an award from arbitration.

Issues

  1. Whether customary law rights over the suit property are noted in the Land register
  2. Whether customary law rights are overriding interests recognized under the Registered Land Act

Reasoning

The evidence on record is silent on whether the respondents' Kikuyu customary law rights are noted in the Land register. The Court held that customary law rights are not overriding interests recognized under the Registered Land Act.

Outcome

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

Orders

  • Set aside the award
  • Strike out the original suit with costs
  • Appellant to have costs of the appeal

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