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

DANIEL MUTHURI & ANOTHER v M’IKIARA KARIGI [2006] KEHC 2641 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 2641 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2641
Citation
[2006] KEHC 2641 (KLR)
Decided
3 May 2006
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil SuitPostureAppeal from an original trial judgmentCoramISAAC LENAOLA
Holding

The defendant has passed the test of intergenerational equity by giving the plaintiffs 4 acres each and leaving 6 acres for himself and his daughters. The plaintiffs' claims for 7 acres and 2 acres are not supported.

Facts

The plaintiffs are son and grandson of the defendant. They claim that a portion of the defendant's land, originally titled Abothuguchi/Kithirune/124, is held in trust for them and other family members. The defendant subdivided the land, and the plaintiffs sought an order of inhibition.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs' claim to the land is valid
  2. Whether the defendant's subdivision of the land renders the plaintiffs' claim nugatory

Reasoning

The court found that the land was ancestral and that the defendant had given the plaintiffs a fair share, thus satisfying the principle of intergenerational equity.

Outcome

The plaintiffs' application for an inhibition is dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' application for an inhibition is dismissed with costs.

Remedies

  • The plaintiffs have other remedies to get what they consider they are entitled to.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Registered Land Act Cap 300
  • Civil Procedure Act
Cases cited (3)
  • Mbui Mukangu vs Gerald Mbui C.A. 281/2000
  • Nyeri C.A. 189/96 Muriuki Marigi vs Richard Marigi Muriuki and 2 others
  • Esiroyo vs Esiroyo [1973] E.A. 388
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