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

Maina v Maina (Civil Appeal 239 of 2009) [2013] KECA 94 (KLR) (10 December 2013) (Judgment)

[2013] KECA 94 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
94
Citation
[2013] KECA 94 (KLR)
Decided
10 December 2013
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal against the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at NyeriCoramALNASHIR VISRAM, MARTHA KOOME, OTIENO-ODEK
Holding

We set aside the High Court's judgment and decree and substitute a judgment in favor of the appellant, finding a trust exists in relation to the suit property.

Facts

The appellant and respondent are brothers and sons of a deceased polygamous man. The father settled his family on two parcels of land, one registered in the respondent's name and the other in the appellant's name. The appellant claimed the respondent held the land on trust for both parties.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent holds the suit property on trust for the appellant.
  2. Whether the appellant can sub-divide the land and transfer one half to the respondent.

Reasoning

The court found the appellant had not proven the existence of a trust over the suit property, despite the respondent's claim of absolute ownership. The court emphasized the need for the registered proprietor to prove the legality of how he acquired the title.

Outcome

Appeal allowed, judgment in favor of the appellant.

Orders

  • Judgment to be entered for the plaintiff against the defendant as prayed for in the plaint dated 3rd December, 1996.

Remedies

  • Judgment in favor of the appellant.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Registered Land Act (RLA)
  • Evidence Act
Cases cited (3)
  • John Kariri Mucheke – v – M’Itabari M’Arunga
  • Jennifer Nyambura Kamau – v- Humphrey Mbaka Nandi
  • Chase International Investment Corporation and Another vs. Laxman Keshra and Others
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case