[2019] KEELC 268 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 268 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff and defendant, as siblings, jointly contributed to the purchase of the suit property and agreed that the defendant would hold it in trust for both. The land was informally subdivided, and both parties occupied their respective portions. The defendant's refusal to formalize the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 268 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Josephat Ng’ang’a Kinyanjui; Defendant: Raphael Kariuki Kinyanjui
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 687 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed; mandatory injunction granted; subdivision and transfer ordered; each party to bear own costs.
Judges
BM Eboso
Legal Topics
Trusts in Land, Co Ownership, Land Registration, Overriding Interests
Source Language
en
Land and Property Trusts in Land Co Ownership Land Registration Overriding Interests

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josephat Ng’ang’a Kinyanjui

Plaintiff

Raphael Kariuki Kinyanjui

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the defendant holds the suit property in trust for the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a 0.5 acre portion of the suit property.
  3. 3 Whether a mandatory injunction should issue restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff and defendant, as siblings, jointly contributed to the purchase of the suit property and agreed that the defendant would hold it in trust for both. The land was informally subdivided, and both parties occupied their respective portions. The defendant's refusal to formalize the subdivision and transfer the plaintiff's share, coupled with the attempt to evict the plaintiff, was contrary to the trust arrangement. The plaintiff's evidence was uncontroverted, and the court was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that a trust existed. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a 0.5 acre portion of the suit property and granted a mandatory...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed; mandatory injunction granted; subdivision and transfer ordered; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • A mandatory injunction restraining the defendant, his servants, agents and/or any other person acting with the defendant's instructions from evicting the plaintiff from the 0.5 acre portion of the suit property occupied by the plaintiff.
  • It is determined that the plaintiff is entitled to the 0.5 acre portion of the suit property which he occupies, and the defendant to the other 0.5 acre portion.