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

CKM v ENM & another (Civil Appeal 250 of 2019) [2024] KECA 293 (KLR) (8 March 2024) (Judgment)

[2024] KECA 293 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
293
Citation
[2024] KECA 293 (KLR)
Decided
8 March 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the High Court of Kenya at MeruCoramJAMILA MOHAMMED, L. KIMARU, A.O. MUCHELULE
Holding

The court held that the property was matrimonial property held in equal share by the 1st respondent and the deceased, and that the appellant was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the suit property.

Facts

The deceased and the 1st respondent were married under Kikuyu customary law in 1968. They acquired several properties during the marriage, including Nyaki/Kithoka/4XX, which was sold by the deceased to the appellant for Kshs.25,000/=.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st respondent contributed to the acquisition of the property
  2. Whether the appellant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the suit property

Reasoning

The court found that the deceased had sold the property without disclosing the 1st respondent's beneficial interest, and that the proceedings related to matrimonial property which could not be defeated by the death of the deceased.

Outcome

The court ordered the cancellation of the title to the suit property and partitioning of the property into two portions.

Orders

  • Cancellation of the title to the suit property
  • Partitioning of the property into two portions

Remedies

  • Partitioning of the property into two portions

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Land Registration Act, 2012
  • Married Women Matrimonial Property Act
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