Muriuki v Muriuki & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal 2 of 2017) [2024] KEELC 1338 (KLR) (14 March 2024) (Judgment)

Key Facts

Issues

• The Appellant claimed the 1st Respondent held the plot in trust for herself and her sisters, but the Trial Magistrate dismissed the suit due to insufficient evidence of a trust. The Appellant argues this evaluation was flawed.
• The Appellant alleges the Trial Magistrate based his judgment on unpleaded facts, such as the absence of a trust and the transfer of the plot to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, without sufficient evidence.
• The Trial Magistrate incorrectly equated the Appellant's trust claim with an adverse possession claim, despite the incompatibility of these legal theories. The Appellant challenges this procedural misdirection.

Holdings

• The court found that the trial magistrate's consideration of the doctrine of adverse possession was a misdirection, as the Appellant's claim was solely based on trust. However, this misdirection did not affect the outcome, as the Appellant still failed to establish the trust's existence, and the dismissal of the suit was justified.
• The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Appellant failed to prove the existence of a trust where the 1st Respondent was registered to hold the suit property for herself and her sisters. The judgment also confirmed that the trial court correctly dismissed the suit as the Appellant did not meet the legal burden of proof for a trust, and there was no evidence of fraudulent transfer by the 1st Respondent.

Remedies

• No costs order is made; parties to bear their own costs of the appeal.
• The appeal is dismissed as it lacks merit. No costs order is made; parties to bear their own costs of the appeal.

Legal Principles

• The court held that the burden to prove the existence of a trust lies on the party asserting it. The Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the 1st Respondent held the property in trust for her and her sisters.
• The trial court incorrectly equated the Appellant's trust claim with a claim under adverse possession. The appellate court clarified that these are incompatible legal doctrines and that the Appellant's case was solely based on trust, which was not proven.
• The Appellant was required to prove the trust on a balance of probability but did not meet this standard. The court emphasized that a trust cannot be implied unless the parties' intention is clearly established through evidence.

Precedent Name

• Mbothu & 8 others –vs- Waitimu & 11 Others
• Peter Ndungu Njenga –vs- Sophia Watiri Ndungu
• Gichuki –vs- Gichuki
• Julelabi African Adventure Ltd & Another –vs- Michael Lockly
• Isaac M'Inanga Kiebia –vs- Isaya Theuri M'Lintari & Another

Cited Statute

• Limitations of Actions Act Cap 22 Laws of Kenya
• Registered Land Act
• Civil Procedure Rule 2010

Judge Name

Passage Text

• 19. This appeal is therefore without any merit and is ordered dismissed. The parties are family members and for that reason I make no order for costs. Parties to bear their own costs of the appeal.
• The law never implies, the Court never presumes, a trust, but in case of absolute necessity. The Courts will not imply trust save in order to give effect to the intentions of the parties. The intentions of the parties to create a trust must be clearly determined before a trust will be implied.
• The uncontroverted evidence was that the Appellants mother also mother to the 1st Respondent freely transferred the plot to the 1st Respondent in 1992. If she intended, the plot to be owned by all the daughters there was nothing that would have preventedher from transferring the same to all the four (4) daughters. There was no evidence led to prove that she intended that the plot was to be held in trust by the 1st Respondent.