Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELC Cause No. 511 of 2017 (formerly Kisii ELC No. 1243 of 2016)· [2019] KEELC 2448 (KLR)

Joseph Ndoyio Kaapei & 2 others v Simon Swakei Kaapei & another [2019] KEELC 2448 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
11 July 2019
1,268 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The three Plaintiffs, sons and mother within the Kaapei family, sued the Defendants, the 1st being the eldest son, claiming that parcels No. 87 and No. 9 Olosakwana Adjudication Section, ancestral family land of the late Mzee Tolota Ole Kaapei, were registered in the Defendants' names in trust for the whole family. They sought a declaration of trust, an order compelling excision and registration of each Plaintiff's 1/8th share, and an injunction. The Defendants admitted the blood relationship but denied the trust, contending the land was adjudicated and registered in their names absolutely. At trial the 1st Plaintiff confined the claim to parcel No. 87, disclaiming any claim over parcel No. 9. Applying Mumo v Makau, that trust is a question of fact to be proved by evidence, Mohammed Noor Kullow J found the Plaintiffs' testimony truthful and, since the suit land was the undisputed ancestral home of all parties, held that an implied trust existed; the 1st Defendant's claim to absolute ownership was an act of fraud and greed, and his duties as trustee were not extinguished by registration. The court declared each Plaintiff entitled to a 1/8th share of parcels No. 87 and No. 9, directed the Defendants to excise, surrender and transfer those shares and reflect them in the Adjudication register within 30 days, and ordered each party to bear its own costs. Note: the relief over parcel No. 9 sits uneasily with the 1st Plaintiff's disclaimer of any claim to it.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a trust was created over the suit land

Holding

An implied trust was created; the Plaintiffs, as family members, proved on a balance of probability that the land registered in the 1st Defendant's name is ancestral family land held in trust for them.

Reasoning

The court accepted the Plaintiffs' testimony and that of their witness as truthful. The suit land was the undisputed ancestral home of all parties who all lived on it. In conformity with Maasai culture the eldest son was appointed to register the land for the family's benefit. Registration in his name alone therefore created an implied trust; claiming it absolutely was an act of fraud and greed to disinherit his siblings.

p. 2
02

Whether the registration of the suit land in the 1st Defendant's name was fraudulent

Holding

The court held that the 1st Defendant's claim to absolute ownership amounted to fraud and greed, breaching his fiduciary duties as trustee.

Reasoning

Relying on Mumo v Makau, the court required proof of trust by evidence. Once it found the parties occupied the land as ancestral family land, the 1st Defendant's assertion of absolute ownership contradicted the family arrangement under which he was registered, and the court characterised that assertion as fraudulent conduct disinheriting his siblings.

Legal principles established

#
  • A claim of trust is a question of fact that must be proved by evidence
  • Registration as absolute owner does not extinguish a trustee's duties where an implied family trust exists

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the Plaintiffs are each entitled to a 1/8th share of parcel No. 87 Olosakwana Adjudication Section and parcel No. 9 Olosakwana Adjudication Section held in trust for them by the Defendants
  2. 2.An order directing the Defendants to excise, surrender and transfer 1/8th for each Plaintiff of Land Parcel No. 87 and Parcel No. 9 Olosakwana Adjudication Section and cause the same to be reflected in the Adjudication register within 30 days of the judgment
  3. 3.Each party shall bear its own costs in the suit

Authorities

#

Cases cited (1)

  • MUMO -VERSUS- MAKAU
    (2002) EA 170
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Environment and Land Court Act over disputes relating to land

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joseph Ndoyio Kaapei & 2 others v Simon Swakei Kaapei & another [2019] KEELC 2448 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Cause No. 511 of 2017 (formerly Kisii ELC No. 1243 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2448/eng@2019-07-11

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