A landmark ruling by the Environment and Land Court in Siaya has clarified that ancestral claims alone are not enough to reclaim registered land decades after it was legally transferred to another owner.
In a judgment delivered on June 24, the court dismissed a man’s bid to recover land he claimed belonged to his late father.
It held that he failed to prove allegations of fraud in the transfer of the property and could not rely solely on ancestral ties to invalidate a title that had existed for more than 30 years.
“A Permanent Injunction against the Defendant/ Respondent, his servants, agents, assignees, representatives or nominees restraining them from entering, trespassing, tilling, using, building, selling or dissipating the parcel of land,” read part of the ruling.
Court Explains Who Can and Cannot Claim Inherited Land
The dispute arose after the man forcefully occupied part of a religious institution’s property in 2023, insisting that the land was his family’s ancestral home.
However, the institution had held a registered title to the property since 1992 and had operated public facilities on the land for decades.
The court found that although the man was entitled to challenge the ownership through legal proceedings, he had no right to enter and occupy the land before establishing his claim in court.
Further, the judge ruled that the institution’s title was protected under the law because no evidence was presented to prove it had been obtained through fraud, illegality, or a corrupt scheme.
Also Read: High Court Declares Sections of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Amendment Act Unconstitutional
Rights of Beneficiaries
The judge observed that allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, noting that the claimant admitted he had neither witnessed the alleged fraudulent transfer nor produced documentary or investigative evidence to support the accusation.
The court further held that the challenge to the property’s ownership had been brought too late. Since the disputed transfer occurred in 1992, the claim was barred by the 12-year limitation period for recovering land.
In rejecting the argument that ancestral occupation created an overriding interest in the land, the court found there was no evidence the claimant had continuously occupied the property before returning in 2023.
It noted that he failed to call witnesses or provide documents to prove he had lived on the land throughout the years.
Also Read: High Court Declares Indefinite Life Imprisonment Unconstitutional
The court concluded that while descendants may pursue inheritance or ownership claims through the courts, ancestral claims alone do not entitle them to reclaim registered land decades later or justify forcefully occupying private property.
Consequently, the court declared the institution the lawful owner of the land, issued permanent injunctions against further interference, and ordered the claimant to vacate the property within 90 days, failing which eviction may be carried out under police supervision.
The court declined to award intervening profits and directed each party to bear its own legal costs, while encouraging the parties to explore an amicable humanitarian settlement if they so wished.
“In respect of costs of the suit and the counterclaim it is trite that costs follow the event. However, the same are also discretionary. In the circumstances of the case, I would exercise my discretion and order that each party bears the costs of the main suit and counterclaim,” read part of the ruling.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
