A widow has lost her bid to stop the transfer of a motor vehicle she claimed belonged to her late husband after the High Court upheld that the logbook holder remained the true owner.
The dispute traces back to the death of the widow’s husband, who, before his passing, was allegedly using the car in question as his own.
According to the widow, the deceased had received the motor vehicle as a gift from the registered owner, a businessman who had maintained legal documentation in his name.
She argued that because her late husband had been in continuous possession of the vehicle, had insured it, and had used it for his personal and family needs, the court ought to recognise it as part of his estate and restrain its transfer to any third party.
However, the businessman maintained that he had never permanently transferred the vehicle to the deceased.
He insisted that despite the deceased having access to the car, he remained the legal owner since the logbook was registered in his name and no sale agreement or transfer instrument was ever executed.
He argued that mere possession and use of a vehicle cannot override statutory requirements under the Traffic Act, which demand that ownership of motor vehicles be evidenced by a duly registered logbook.
The businessman told the court that in January 2021, he had allowed the deceased to use his motor vehicle for personal and daily activities.
However, he died on January 9, 2023.
After his death, the businessman said he made several attempts to have the car returned, but it was retained by the deceased’s estate, prompting him to seek the court’s intervention.
"That she has since then refused to surrender it and continues to use the same against the Plaintiff’s wishes, thereby necessitating the filing of the suit," part of the judgment stated.
The matter first reached the court when the widow applied for an order stopping the transfer of the car pending the determination of ownership.
She presented documents showing that her late husband had paid for insurance policies in his name and had shouldered maintenance costs, which to her amounted to proof that the car belonged to him.
The widow further asserted that the car had been used as a family vehicle and therefore ought to form part of the deceased’s estate for purposes of succession.
"The defendant (widow) stated that the deceased subsequently gifted the said motor vehicle to her. She asserted that since the purchase of the motor vehicle, her late husband consistently insured it in his own name as he was the beneficial owner thereof," the judgment stated.
In response, the businessman filed a replying affidavit dismissing the widow’s assertions.
He told the court that while the deceased may have occasionally insured the car and even fueled or repaired it, that did not amount to a transfer of ownership.
He stressed that he had not sold, donated, or otherwise relinquished his legal title over the vehicle and that he remained the sole owner as reflected in the records of the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA).
During court proceedings, the widow’s lawyers urged the judge to adopt a broad interpretation of ownership, arguing that reliance solely on NTSA records would amount to unjust enrichment of the businessman at the expense of the deceased’s estate.
They pointed to instances where possession, insurance, and other indicators of control have been recognised as evidence of beneficial ownership.
On the other hand, counsel for the businessman asked the court to dismiss the widow’s application, warning that if possession were allowed to override the logbook, then chaos would reign in the motor vehicle sector, with multiple parties claiming rights over cars without proper documentation.
After considering arguments from both sides, the court noted that while the Constitution and statutes recognise the principle of fairness in property disputes, the Traffic Act provides a clear framework for ownership of vehicles, which in this case is tied to the logbook.
The judge observed that although insurance policies and use of the vehicle by the deceased might suggest a beneficial relationship, such factors do not in themselves displace the legal owner unless backed by evidence of a sale, transfer, or gift meeting the requirements of the law.
The court further held that the widow had failed to present any written agreement or documentary evidence confirming that the businessman had indeed gifted the vehicle to her late husband.
The judge emphasised that oral claims of gifting cannot suffice when dealing with assets that are regulated by statutory instruments requiring registration.
In his ruling on August 14, 2025, Justice Benjamin Njoroge concluded that the businessman, as the registered logbook holder, remained the lawful owner of the disputed car.
The court ruled that "a declaration that the Plaintiff(businessman) is the rightful and duly registered owner of the motor Vehicle and that a mandatory Injunction compelling the Defendant to return the motor vehicle to the Plaintiff."
Consequently, the widow’s application to block the transfer of the vehicle was dismissed, and earlier orders preserving the status quo were lifted.
Costs were awarded to the businessman.
