Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 5401 (KLR)

Our Lady of Grace School Foundation Ltd. (Formerly Known As Libra Institute) v Registered Trustees of Franciscan Sisters of St. Anne, Lwak & another (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 42 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 5401 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 July 2025
10,848 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~43 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court dismissed a school foundation's claim to land because only the actual trust beneficiary, not a hopeful recipient, could enforce the trust.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, a company limited by guarantee (formerly Libra Institute Limited, renamed Our Lady of Grace School Foundation Limited), sued the Franciscan Sisters of St. Anne Lwak (Registered Trustees) and their Mother Superior seeking a temporary injunction, a declaration of a resulting trust, specific performance compelling transfer of four suit properties in Kisumu (Kisumu/Konya/2195, Kisumu/Konya/5373, Kisumu/Mukendwa/271 and Kisumu/Mukendwa/273), costs and interest. The Plaintiff claimed the properties, bought with donor funds raised by Father Martin Martiny of the Dominican Friars of East Africa for children affected by the 2007/2008 post-election violence, had been registered in the 1st Defendant's name to hold in trust until a suitable legal entity was found. The Defendants denied the trust for the Plaintiff's benefit, contending the properties belonged beneficially to the Dominican Friars and that dispositions of Catholic property were governed by Canon Law. S. Okong'o, Judge, framed three issues and found that although the 1st Defendant admittedly held the properties in trust for the Dominican Friars, the Plaintiff was not the beneficiary. The correspondence from members of the Dominican Friars did not amount to a legally binding instrument transferring the beneficial interest to the Plaintiff, so only the Dominican Friars could enforce the trust. The suit was dismissed on 17th July 2025 with each party bearing its own costs, the Judge finding the Plaintiff had acted in good faith in a dispute involving properties meant for needy children.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a resulting trust was established in favour of the Plaintiff

Holding

No. The trust admitted on the evidence was in favour of the Dominican Friars, not the Plaintiff, and no legally binding instrument transferred the beneficial interest to the Plaintiff

Reasoning

The court found that the suit properties were registered in the 1st Defendant's name to hold in trust for the Dominican Friars, an admission made by DW1 in evidence. The Dominican Friars' correspondence showed an intention to transfer to the Plaintiff, but the court held that mere correspondence from different members of the order did not constitute a legally binding agreement or instrument conferring the beneficial interest on the Plaintiff, so only the Dominican Friars could enforce the trust.

p. 16
02

Whether registered title defeats a claim of trust

Holding

No. Registration vests absolute ownership but the proviso to section 28 of the Registered Land Act subjects the proprietor's rights to trustee obligations

Reasoning

The suit properties were registered under the Registered Land Act (repealed). While section 28 confers indefeasibility, the proviso expressly does not relieve a proprietor of trustee duties. The court relied on John Gitiba Buruna to hold that the 1st Defendant's registered ownership was subject to its obligation as trustee for the Dominican Friars, and rejected DW1's assertion that possession of the title deed conclusively proves ownership.

p. 16
03

Burden of proving a resulting trust

Holding

The burden lay on the Plaintiff to prove the trust and the parties' intention, which it failed to discharge

Reasoning

Citing Heartbeat Limited v Ng'ambwa, the court recognised that the party claiming a resulting trust bears the onus of proving it through evidence. Citing Peter Ndungu Njenga, the court noted that courts will not imply a trust save to give effect to the parties' intention, which must be clearly determined. The Plaintiff provided no purchase funds and was not party to the transactions.

p. 14

Legal principles established

#
  • Registration of a proprietor under the Registered Land Act does not relieve a proprietor of duties or obligations as a trustee
  • Only the beneficiary of a trust can sue to enforce the trustee's fiduciary duties; a stranger without a transferred beneficial interest cannot
  • A resulting trust arises automatically in favour of the person who advances the purchase money
  • The presumption of a resulting trust is rebuttable by evidence that the transferor intended the transfer to take effect in some other way

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff's suit is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear its own costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit properties (land within Kisumu County), suit instituted by plaint dated 8th July 2020

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Our Lady of Grace School Foundation Ltd. (Formerly Known As Libra Institute) v Registered Trustees of Franciscan Sisters of St. Anne, Lwak & another (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 42 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 5401 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5401/eng@2025-07-17

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