Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC. Civil Case No. 234 of 2010· [2018] KEELC 261 (KLR)

Pauline Njoki Mogwanja & another v Roskan Investments Limited & 3 others [2018] KEELC 261 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
12 November 2018
7,050 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~28 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that family land can be held on an unwritten trust, and transferring it after the owner died was fraudulent.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs and the 2nd Defendant, sisters, sued the 1st Defendant (a family company owned by the 2nd Defendant's husband and daughter) and its shareholders, alleging that their late brother James Mirie held the Limuru suit property, bequeathed to the sisters by their mother's 1976 Will, on a constructive trust under the terms of a 1997 family meeting: the land was not to be sold, and if sold the sisters would have the first offer. They alleged the 2009 Memorandum of Agreement under which the property was transferred to the 1st Defendant for a nominal Kshs. 10 million was a sale in breach of that trust, and that the transfer was fraudulently registered on 30/3/2010, after James Mirie's death on 13/2/2010 and before any grant of representation. The Defendants denied any trust, maintained the arrangement was a development scheme in which James Mirie held 74% of the 1st Defendant, and counterclaimed for Kshs. 51,986,315.00 in project expenses and Kshs. 475,895,520.00 in projected lost profits. The court found the 1997 minutes imposed a constructive trust despite no registered encumbrance; that the four elements of a sale were met; and that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants intermeddled with the deceased's estate under section 45 of the Law of Succession Act, the posthumous registration being fraudulent. The counterclaim failed for want of evidence of any development. The court allowed the Plaintiffs' prayers, dismissed the counterclaim, and awarded the Plaintiffs the costs of both the suit and the counterclaim.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the late James Mirie held the Suit Property on trust for his sisters

Holding

Yes. He held it on a constructive trust for the Plaintiffs and the 2nd Defendant on the conditions that the land would not be sold and that the sisters would have the first option to purchase it

Reasoning

The 1997 family minutes, though informally drafted, showed the sisters relinquished their interest on condition the farm would not be sold and they would get the first offer. James paid no consideration and the intention was to keep the land in the family. Even though the intention could not be precisely ascertained, equity imposed a trust on the legal owner despite no registered encumbrance.

p. 5
02

Whether the Memorandum of Agreement dated 12/8/2009 amounted to a sale of the Suit Property

Holding

Yes. The transfer was a sale notwithstanding the nominal consideration of Kshs. 10 million and the fact that James Mirie held 74% of the transferee company's shares

Reasoning

Applying the four elements of a sale (competent parties, mutual assent, transferable thing, and a price), the court found the ingredients met. The property passed to the 1st Defendant, a separate legal person, and the sisters were not given the first offer as agreed in the 1997 minutes, breaching the trust.

p. 6
03

Whether the transfer of the Suit Property to the 1st Defendant was fraudulent

Holding

Yes. The transfer was registered on 30/3/2010, after James Mirie died on 13/2/2010, and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants intermeddled with the estate before a grant was obtained

Reasoning

Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act prohibits intermeddling with a deceased's free property; section 79 vests property in the legal representative. Under sections 61 and 62 of the Land Registration Act, the land ought to have been registered by transmission to a personal representative. No plausible explanation was given for the delayed registration of the transfer.

p. 6
04

Whether the Defendants' counterclaim for damages stood

Holding

No. The counterclaim was dismissed as it did not lie once the trust was established, and no evidence showed the property had been developed

Reasoning

The projected profits of an unbuilt development were speculative and depended on assumptions about funding and market stability. The only quantifiable loss was the Kshs. 5 million each that the Plaintiffs had declined to contribute. Having found a trust and a fraudulent transfer, the Defendants could not claim damages for interference with the project.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the intention of the parties cannot be ascertained and the circumstances demand it, equity will treat the legal owner of land as a constructive trustee even where no trust is registered against the title
  • A transfer of land effected and registered after the death of the registered proprietor, before a grant of representation, is fraudulent and illegal; the date a transfer takes effect is the date of registration
  • Directors who transfer a deceased registered proprietor's land before grant of representation intermeddle with the free property of the deceased contrary to section 45 of the Law of Succession Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The court allows prayers I, II, II (b), III, IV, V, VI, and VII of the Amended Plaint dated 21/7/2017
  2. 2.The Defendants' Amended Counterclaim dated 14/8/2017 is dismissed
  3. 3.The Plaintiffs are awarded the costs of the suit and of the Amended Counterclaim
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Environment and Land Court Act over disputes relating to title and interest in land

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Pauline Njoki Mogwanja & another v Roskan Investments Limited & 3 others [2018] KEELC 261 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). ELC. Civil Case No. 234 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/261/eng@2018-11-12

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.