Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves plaintiffs (nephews of the defendant) claiming a customary trust over land registered in the name of their deceased father and the defendant. The court dismissed the case as plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a customary trust. Key facts include the land's registration under two brothers (late Gunga Baya and defendant), the plaintiffs' status as heirs to their late father's portion, and the legal requirement that customary trusts must be proven through evidence of family/clan land ownership and intent to create a trust. The court emphasized that registration as proprietor does not negate potential customary trusts but requires factual proof of such intent.
Issues
The sole issue for determination was whether the Plaintiff established through evidence that a customary trust was created on the suit land (Kilifi/Chilulu/269) in favor of the Plaintiffs and their families, particularly the dependants of the late Katana Gunga Baya.
Holdings
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' case, finding that they failed to establish through evidence that a customary trust was created on the suit land. The court emphasized that customary trusts must be proven by evidence of intention and family/clan land ownership, which the plaintiffs did not demonstrate.
Remedies
- Costs were awarded to the Defendant, as the Plaintiffs did not establish the necessary evidence for a customary trust.
- The case was dismissed with costs to the Defendant, as the Plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a customary trust on the suit land.
Legal Principles
- The court held that the Plaintiffs bore the burden of proving the existence of a customary trust on the subject land. The failure to meet this evidentiary requirement led to the dismissal of their case, as the evidence tendered was insufficient to establish the necessary intention or factual basis for a customary trust.
- The court emphasized that customary trusts must be proven through clear evidence of the parties' intention to create such a trust. It reiterated that trusts cannot be implied by the court unless there is demonstrable evidence of the required legal and factual elements, including the land's status as family/clan property and the claimant's close relationship to the group.
Precedent Name
- Muthuita vs Muthuita
- Martha Thairora Gikundi v Elizabeth Kananu & Another
- Njenga Chogera vs Maria Wanjira Kimani & 2 Others
- Justus Maina Muruku V Jane Waithira Mwangi
- Isack Kieba M'inanga v Isaaya Theuri M'Lintari & another
- Dominic Otieno Ogonyo & 2 Others v Helida Akoth Walori
Cited Statute
- Land Registration Act 2012
- Registered Land Act Cap 300
Judge Name
MAO Odeny
Passage Text
- I find that the Plaintiffs have not established through evidence that there was a customary trust created or that there was an intention to create one.
- The fact that a person is registered as a proprietor does not preclude him/her from holding an interest in trust for another. Customary trust is an encumbrance on land.
- A trust can never be implied by the Court, unless there was intention to create a trust in the first place.