Bridget Riara Eustus & 5 others v Eustus Kirimi M’aburi [2021] KEELC 1966 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Meru dismissed a family's claim that their father held land in customary trust for them, because they failed to prove the land was inherited ancestral land.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the suit land was ancestral land registered in the name of the defendant in trust for the plaintiffs (customary trust)
- 2.Whether the plaintiffs proved a customary trust entitling them to the relief sought
- 3.Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating parcels 757, 759 and 760
Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant held the suit land in customary trust for the plaintiffs
The plaintiffs failed to prove the customary trust; there was no evidence that the land was ancestral or inherited from the defendant's father
The court perused the documents availed by the plaintiffs and found that none demonstrated how the land came into the defendant's hands from his father. The only green card showing registration history was that of parcel 760, not the mother title 220. The defendant himself contended he bought the land. The court therefore found the ancestral/customary trust claim unsubstantiated and dismissed the suit, noting the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs had already been given parcels 758 and 757 respectively.
Legal principles established
#- A claim of trust, including customary trust, must be proved by evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit, this being a family dispute
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a dispute relating to title to land (Abogeta/Lower Kiungone parcels)
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling, charging, leasing or interfering with L.R Nos. Abogeta/Lower Kiungone/757, 759 and 760 and the proposed re-sharing/registration of the parcels
The claim of customary trust was not proved; no cogent evidence that the defendant inherited the land from his father
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I find that the plaintiffs claim has not been established. The same is hereby dismissed. This being a family dispute then I direct each party to bear their own costs of the suit.
I find that there is no cogent evidence to show that defendant inherited the land such that the same can be termed as ancestral land.
Trust, including customary trust must be proved
Issues in the judgment
#The statement of defence is dated 29.3.2020 but allegedly filed on 31.3.2010, an apparent date contradiction
The names of the plaintiffs are not fully set out in the judgment; only some are identified by name (Bridget Riara Eustus, Edwin Marangu, Washington Kimathi) from the proposed sharing
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bridget Riara Eustus & 5 others v Eustus Kirimi M’aburi [2021] KEELC 1966 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Meru ELC Case (plaint filed 2.3.2010; number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1966/eng@2021-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.