Elmandry and Others v Salem (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1956)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
A Muslim gift is valid where the donor transfers the entire freehold interest immediately and irrevocably, even if the donor receives back the right to collect rents and profits during her lifetime through a separate lease. The reservation of annual fruits without control over the corpus does not invalidate the gift. The donor did not retain part of what she gave but received back something essentially different in kind.
Outcome
Gift declared valid; certificate of title to be delivered to respondent
Facts
Khadija binti Salim bin Issa, a Muslim of the Shafei school, owned a house and land in Mombasa which she let to tenants at rack rents. On 25 January 1944, she transferred the property to her niece, the respondent, by registered transfer. As part of the same transaction, the respondent executed a lease back to the deceased for her lifetime at a nominal rent of Sh. 30 per annum, allowing the deceased to continue collecting the rack rents. The deceased paid full rack rents to the respondent for the first four months, then paid only the nominal rent until her death in 1953. The certificate of ownership was found among the deceased's effects at her death. The appellants, as executors and heirs of the deceased, sued claiming the gift was invalid under Muslim law and seeking rectification of the register. The Supreme Court held the gift valid and ordered delivery of the certificate to the respondent.
Issues
- Whether a gift of land under Muslim law (Shafei school) is invalidated when the donor reserves the right to receive rents and profits during her lifetime through a leaseback arrangement.
- Whether there was valid delivery of possession to the donee.
- Whether the transaction constituted a gift with stipulation for return (Hiba-basharat-ul-iwaz) or an invalid future or contingent gift.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.
- Instruction fee in the Supreme Court proceedings reduced from Sh. 9,000 to Sh. 2,000.
- Total taxed costs in Supreme Court reduced from Sh. 10,788/50 to Sh. 3,788/50.
- Order for delivery of certificate of title to respondent affirmed.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (4)
- Nawab Umjad v Mussumat (11 Moore I.A. 517)
- Phul Bee v R.P.M. (13 Rangoon 679)
- Sarifuddin v Mohiuddin (54 Cal. 754)
- Mohamed Abdul Ghani v Fakhr Jahan Begam (49 I.A. 195)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.