Kasmani (Suing as lawful attorney and agent Of Asgarali Abdulshakur Kasmani) v Kasmani & 2 others (Land Case E285 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1065 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a family trust claim for now, but froze the disputed Parklands property until the full case is heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection met the Mukisa Biscuit test
The preliminary objection failed all four grounds and was dismissed
The first ground on Dubai properties could not dispose of the suit since other suit properties lie within the court's jurisdiction. The second ground failed because several trusts can exist over one title, some unregistered. The third ground required factual determination of whether a gift occurred, which is outside a preliminary objection. The fourth ground was ambiguous with no fatality established.
Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for an injunction
No - the plaintiff had not proven the claimed trust or legal right over the Parklands property
The title shows the 1st defendant registered as trustee of his son Uwais Abdul Shakur Kasmani. The plaintiff's claim of a broader family trust was unproven at the interlocutory stage. The court balanced the registered trustee's rights against preservation of the suit property and found the balance of convenience favoured a status quo order rather than a full injunction.
Whether accounts and surrender of documents could be ordered at the interlocutory stage
No - the existence of the alleged customary trust under Islamic law must first be proven
Citing Richard Nyamemba Auka and Juletabi African Adventure, the court held that the existence of a trust is a matter of fact that must be pleaded, particularized and proved; the court never presumes a trust. Since the trust claim remained undetermined, the court could not assume its existence and compel the registered owner to account or surrender documents.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law, argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or judicial discretion exercised
- A trust, whether customary or constructive, is never implied by the court; the party relying on its existence must plead, particularize and prove it through evidence
- 'Status quo' means the present state of affairs at the time the order is made, and such an order must be specific and descriptive
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of preliminary objection dated 18th August, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.The notice of motion dated 10th June, 2025 is dismissed
- 3.Status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit - specifically, the 1st defendant/respondent not to make any further transactions on LR 1870/1/347, such as sub-division or alienation, and to preserve it pending full hearing
- 4.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction; application brought under Order 40 Rules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kasmani (Suing as lawful attorney and agent Of Asgarali Abdulshakur Kasmani) v Kasmani & 2 others (Land Case E285 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1065 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1065/eng@2026-02-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.