Mwangi v Muriuki & 3 others
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a buyer's trust claim over Laikipia land because the new owners bought without notice of his claim.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a trust (express, constructive or resulting) was established over Parcels 2294 and 2295 in favour of the plaintiff
No trust was established. There was no evidence of an express trust between the 1st and 2nd defendants and the 3rd and 4th defendants in favour of the plaintiff; a constructive trust could not be imposed because the 3rd and 4th defendants acquired the properties from the then registered proprietors without wrongdoing or notice of the plaintiff's claim; and the 1st defendant, not being the owner in 2007, could not be a trustee of property he did not own.
The court adopted the Court of Appeal's exposition of trust law in Heartbeat Limited v Ng'abwa, distinguishing constructive and resulting trusts. The plaintiff's dealings were with the 1st defendant in 2007, while the 3rd and 4th defendants purchased in 2018 and 2019 from the registered proprietors. The land register showed no caution or encumbrance by the plaintiff, and there was no evidence the purchasers knew of his claim. The authorities the plaintiff relied on were distinguished because in those cases the suit property had not been transferred to third parties.
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs sought in the originating summons
The reliefs were dependent on proof of the trust, which failed; the plaintiff was therefore not entitled to the reliefs.
Having found no trust, the court held that the consequential reliefs - registration of the parcels in the plaintiff's name, execution of transfer instruments, and dispensation with production of original title deeds - could not issue, as they all flowed from proof of the trust.
Who shall bear costs of the suit
Costs awarded to the successful 3rd and 4th defendants; the 1st and 2nd defendants, who did not participate, get no costs.
Applying section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and Hussein Janmohamed & Sons v Twentsche Overseas Trading Co Ltd, costs follow the event unless there is good reason to depart. The court found no reason to deprive the successful litigants of costs, and non-participating defendants were not entitled to costs.
Legal principles established
#- A vendor or purported vendor cannot become a trustee with respect to property he does not own for the benefit of a third party
- A constructive trust is imposed by law against one who has acquired property through wrongful means to prevent unjust enrichment; it cannot be imposed where there is no evidence of wrongdoing or knowledge of a prior claim
- Costs follow the event under the proviso to section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act unless the court, for good reason, directs otherwise
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs to the 3rd and 4th defendants only
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22) and Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land disputes
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwangi v Muriuki & 3 others", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Case 6 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15090/eng@2022-11-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.