Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Suit (Voi) - plaint dated 10th December 2018· [2024] KEELC 645 (KLR)

Karugi v Gaitho; Maina (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 5 of 2023) (Environment and Land) [2024] KEELC 645 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 February 2024
SKS. M. Kibunja
3,887 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed a woman's claim to half of her former partner's properties because she could not prove a trust existed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff sued the defendant, her former intimate partner, seeking declarations that seven listed properties (including plot No. 9122/93 Mtwapa Galaxy Resort and plots in Voi, Taveta, Umoja, Ruai and Sultan Palace) be settled for her benefit in 50:50 proportion on the basis that the defendant held them in trust, together with a mandatory injunction reinstating her into the Mtwapa house, a permanent injunction against dealings, and accounts of beneficial ownership and rents. She alleged they cohabited from 2003, jointly acquired properties, and registered Galaxy Crislyn Kenya Limited with equal shares. The defendant denied the trust claim, asserting he owned the properties in his own right, and averred the Mtwapa plot belonged to the interested party, Rose Wambui Maina, his wife, to whom he had transferred it on 17th September 2018. The interested party joined the suit and claimed the Mtwapa plot as her own. The court framed three issues: whether a trust was established, its extent, and costs. Applying sections 24-26 of the Land Registration Act and sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act, and following Juletabi African Adventure and Peter Ndungu Njenga, the court held that a party alleging a trust must prove it, and that courts will not imply a trust save in absolute necessity. The plaintiff produced no documentary evidence of payments towards acquisition, and no properties were registered in the company's name. Her suit was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs, given the prior friendly relationship between the parties.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an express or implied trust arose in favour of the plaintiff over properties registered in the defendant's name

Holding

No trust was established; the plaintiff failed to prove her claim on a balance of probabilities

Reasoning

The properties claimed were registered in the defendant's name, conferring indefeasible title under sections 24-26 of the Land Registration Act. The party alleging a trust bears the burden of proving it, and courts will not imply a trust except in case of absolute necessity. The plaintiff's documents (photographs, bank statements, affidavits) did not demonstrate payments for purchase of any property or any intention that the defendant hold 50% in trust. The company Galaxy Crislyn Kenya Limited held no registered properties, so its 50:50 shareholding did not evidence co-ownership.

02

Whether registration of Galaxy Crislyn Kenya Limited with 50:50 shareholding established joint ownership of the suit properties

Holding

It did not; no property, bank account or business was proved to be registered in the company's name

Reasoning

Both parties agreed in testimony that no property had been registered in the company's name, and no documents such as bank statements, invoices, statutory returns or receipts were produced to show the Mtwapa Galaxy Resort business was operated through the company. The fact that no property had been registered in the company by 2018 when the parties parted ways indicated none had been jointly acquired.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • The onus lies on a party relying on the existence of a trust to prove it through evidence; courts will not imply a trust save in case of absolute necessity and only to give effect to the parties' intention
  • A certificate of title is prima facie evidence that the named proprietor is the absolute and indefeasible owner, challengeable only on fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, unprocedural acquisition or corruption

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the plaintiff has failed to prove her claim to the standard required by the law of a balance of probabilities
  2. 2.That the plaintiff's suit is hereby dismissed
  3. 3.That each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Registered Land Act (repealed)sections 24 and 25
  • Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012sections 24, 25 and 26
  • Evidence Actsections 107 to 109
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 27

Cases cited (2)

  • Juletabi African Adventure Limited & Another v Christopher Michael Lockley
    [2017] eKLR
  • Peter Ndungu Njenga v Sophia Watiri Ndungu
    [2000] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land (Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, as implemented by the Environment and Land Court Act) - suit commenced by plaint dated 10th December 2018

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karugi v Gaitho; Maina (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 5 of 2023)  (Environment and Land) [2024] KEELC 645 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELC Suit (Voi) - plaint dated 10th December 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/645/eng@2024-02-14

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