[1991] KEHC 3 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant, though registered as proprietor of the suit land, was holding 1.74 acres in trust for the plaintiffs as part of their family land. The evidence showed that the land was registered in the defendant's name by virtue of his status as eldest son, but the intention was for him to hold...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1991] KEHC 3 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: M’Ikunyua Ibari; Plaintiff: Stephen Kijogi Ibari; Defendant: Nkanata M’Ibari
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 215 of 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the plaintiffs
- Legal Topics
- Trusts in Land, Family Land Disputes, Registration of Title
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
M’Ikunyua Ibari
Plaintiff
Stephen Kijogi Ibari
Plaintiff
Nkanata M’Ibari
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant holds land parcel Abothuguchi/Kariene/69 as a trustee for the plaintiffs to the extent of 1.74 acres.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a transfer of 1.74 acres from the defendant as their share of family land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant, though registered as proprietor of the suit land, was holding 1.74 acres in trust for the plaintiffs as part of their family land. The evidence showed that the land was registered in the defendant's name by virtue of his status as eldest son, but the intention was for him to hold a portion for his step-brothers, the plaintiffs. The defendant's failure to contest the claim and the plaintiffs' credible testimony established the trust. The court therefore ordered the defendant to excise and transfer 1.74 acres to the plaintiffs as joint proprietors in equal shares, with provision for the court's Executive Officer to sign documents if the defendant failed...
Court Disposition
judgment for the plaintiffs
Orders
- The defendant shall excise and transfer 1.74 acres from land parcel Abothuguchi/Kariene/69 to the plaintiffs as joint proprietors in equal shares.
- The defendant shall sign all documents necessary for sub-division and transfer; if he fails, the Executive Officer of the court is empowered to sign on his behalf.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CIV CASE 215 OF 1990
M’IKUNYUA IBARI )
STEPHEN KIJOGI IBARI ) …. ... ... … … PLAINTIFF
versus
NKANATA M’IBARI ) … …. … … DEFENDANT
28/1/91
Coram: SO Oguk – judge
Plaintiff in person
Defendant - absent
Court Interpreter – Murungi
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs claim against the defendant in respect of land parcel No Abothuguchi/Kariene/69 measuring 1. 644 hectares (approximately 4. 10 acres or thereabouts) is founded on trust. It is their case that although the defendant is the registered owner of this land, he was so registered to hold the same as a trustee for himself and for both plaintiffs to the extent of 1. 74 acres. The plaintiffs claim was not contended by the defendant.
It is the plaintiffs’ case that the defendant is their eldest brother and now head of their family. They are both the sons of M’Ibari now deceased, who died in 1964. Before his death, their deceased father caused his land to be registered in the name of the defendant who was the son of his eldest wife Karoki. He was to hold that land as a trustee for himself (defendant) and also for the plaintiffs who were his younger step-brothers being the sons of his (M’Ibari’s) second wife, Alice Nchune. The said family land was then registered in the name of defendant, Nkanatha Ibari as land parcel No Abothuguchi/Kariene/69 measuring 1. 644 hectares (approximately 4. 10 acres or thereabouts) as shown in the certified copy of the register (Ex.1). The plaintiffs testified that they have persistently asked the defendant to sub-divide this title and give them their portion of land which he has been holding title in trust for them but he has refused. Both of them are now living with their mother on a small piece of land: Abothuguchi/Kariene/169 measuring 0. 33 acres (less than half an acre) which the 1st plaintiff had bought. They now claim from the defendant a portion of the suit land measuring 1. 74 acres for them to share which according to their father before he died, the defendant was to give them.
As I have already stated, the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant has not been contested. I am satisfied that both of them are entitled to a portion of the suit land, Abothuguchi/Kariene/69 which I find that the defendant although registered as a proprietor thereof, is holding a portion of it to the extent of 1. 74 acres as a trustee for the plaintiffs thus being their family land which was registered in the defendant’s name by virtue of the fact that he was the eldest son in the family. The plaintiffs have not had any share of the family land and I now give them judgment against the defendant for the transfer of a portion of land parcel No Abothuguchi/Kariene 69 measuring 1. 74 acres. I order that the defendant shall excise the said portion of 1. 74 acres out of the said title and transfer the same to both plaintiffs as joint proprietors in common in equal shares each being entitled to one half thereof.
I order that the defendant shall sign all such documents for a sub-division and transfer of the said 1. 74 acres to the plaintiffs and should he refuse or fail to do so, then I empower the Executive Officer of this Court to sing all such documents on behalf of the defendant so as to give effect to this judgment. The plaintiffs shall meet all the sub-division, survey and transfer charges.
As the defendant has not contested their claim, I do not find it necessary to burden him with the costs of this suit. I therefore order that each party shall meet his own costs.
Order accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Meru this 28th day of January, 1991.
SO OGUK
JUDGE