Registred Trustees Catholic Acrhdiocese of Mombasa v Kariithi & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 70 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 421 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed the Catholic Archdiocese's land claim because it had no documents proving the church ever bought or owned the property.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC had jurisdiction to entertain the claim given the vesting orders issued by the Family Court in succession proceedings
The court had jurisdiction because the claim was framed on ownership, acquisition of title and constructive trust, not on a challenge to the succession orders; the court cannot nullify succession proceedings
The 1st and 2nd Defendants argued the church must litigate within estate administration, not a separate suit. The court held the claim went beyond beneficiary rights, raising constructive trust and ownership of title within its ELC Act jurisdiction. However, it declined to determine whether the defendants were rightly conferred as beneficiaries, as that is a probate issue under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act reserved to the High Court, and this court cannot sit on appeal over a court of equal status.
Whether the plaintiff had locus standi
The objection was misplaced; the issues raised were evidentiary matters properly considered under proof of the claim
The 1st and 2nd Defendants contended the church was a stranger with no legal or beneficial interest. The court held the matters raised were evidentiary issues going to whether the plaintiff proved its case to the required standard, and that locus standi was not properly raised to pre-empt the hearing on the merits.
Whether the land was held in trust (resulting/constructive) for the Plaintiffs
No; no express trust was proved, and the resulting/constructive trust claim failed for lack of evidence of intention documented and of purchase moneys advanced by the church
Applying the Archer and Shah authorities, the court required proof of intention and advance of purchase monies at the point of purchase. PW1 admitted the church had no records of purchase, receipts or agreements; no neighbours or congregation members were called; no evidence of actual possession was led. The Certificate of Incorporation of Trust found in the parcel file, without explanation, did not prove the trustees held the land for the church.
Whether the allegations of fraud in the succession proceedings and record alterations could impeach the defendants' title
No; the fraud allegations concern probate matters the court lacks jurisdiction to determine, and absent a proved trust the title could not be impeached
The court noted the succession proceedings were conducted by the High Court, a court of equal status under Article 162(2)(b), and Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act governs revocation of grants. Evidence of discrepancies in the adjudication records (the deletion of Father Alois Ngoma's name without an objection number) was noted, but without a proved trust or overriding interest the plaintiff had no basis to defeat the registered title.
Costs
Although costs normally follow the event, the court exercised discretion to spare the church paying costs
Under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event unless the court for good reason orders otherwise. The court, exercising judicial discretion reasonably, inclined to spare the church the burden of paying costs despite dismissing its suit, ordering each party to bear their own costs.
Legal principles established
#- A resulting trust requires proof of intention and that the claimant advanced the purchase money at the point of purchase; registration in whose name the property is held is immaterial
- A constructive trust is an overriding interest under the Land Registration Act capable of defeating a registered title, and is imposed whenever justice and good conscience require
- The ELC has no jurisdiction to review, nullify or redistribute a deceased's estate or succession proceedings conducted by the High Court, a court of equal and concurrent jurisdiction
- Where the duplicate adjudication record and the original differ, the duplicate takes precedence, and deletions from adjudication records must be supported by an objection number
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiffs' suit is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and the ELC Act (original jurisdiction over ownership and acquisition of title)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Registred Trustees Catholic Acrhdiocese of Mombasa v Kariithi & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 70 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 421 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (ELC suit, Kwale; Plaint dated 20th November 2019, amended 7th June 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/421/eng@2026-02-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.