Family Land Dispute Ends as Court Reinstates Son’s Title Deed, Overturns Lower Court Ruling
Justice Kamau also rejected the lower court’s conclusion that Benson had failed to prove the legality of the land transfer because he did not produce Land Control Board consent documents or transfer forms.
Photo: Courtesy.
By Robert Mutasi
A long-running family land dispute in Nyandarua County has ended with the Environment and Land Court overturning a magistrate’s decision that had cancelled a son’s title deed, bringing fresh clarity to a bitter inheritance battle involving a mother and her five children.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Mugo Kamau, the court ruled that the trial magistrate at the Ol Kalou Law Courts had erred in law by declaring a land sale agreement invalid on the grounds that it lacked spousal consent.
The judge reinstated Benson Ng’anga Kamau’s title deed and directed that every family member should remain on the portion of land allocated to them by their late father.The dispute centered on a parcel of land that Benson said had been lawfully transferred to him by his late father, Shadrack Kamau Muriba, on Dec. 22, 2022.
According to court documents, Benson moved to court after his mother, Hannah Njoki Kamau, and four brothers entered the property on March 11, 2025, accompanied by a surveyor and officials from the Tumaini Assistant County Commissioner’s office.
He claimed they intended to subdivide the land despite his ownership.Benson told the court that he had developed the property exclusively since receiving the title and sought a permanent injunction to stop his family members, their agents or anyone acting on their behalf from entering, occupying or interfering with the land.
His brothers, led by Samuel Kamuhu Kamau, rejected the claim and maintained that Benson’s ownership rights had been extinguished following a failed land sale agreement.The respondents argued that Benson had agreed to purchase the land for Sh1 million and paid an initial deposit of Sh700,000 before failing to clear the remaining Sh300,000.
They claimed the deposit was later refunded, effectively cancelling the agreement.In a counterclaim, they asked the court to redistribute the land by allocating 0.22 hectares to their late father’s estate, 0.322 hectares to their mother and dividing the remaining portion among the siblings.
They also argued that the land formed part of matrimonial property and accused Benson of evicting their mother from land where she had lived since 1982.The Ol Kalou magistrate dismissed Benson’s case, ordered the cancellation of his title deed and directed that the property revert to the estate of the deceased.
The court concluded that the transfer was invalid because it had been carried out without the consent of the deceased’s wife and had unfairly left her without land.However, the Environment and Land Court found significant weaknesses in that decision.
Justice Kamau said the respondents’ evidence contained serious contradictions that undermined their claims. Although they admitted that Benson had paid Sh700,000 toward the purchase price, they acknowledged they were not present when the agreement was executed.
The judge also questioned why the Assistant County Commissioner, who was allegedly present when the deposit was refunded, was never called to testify.Further inconsistencies emerged during the hearing, with one witness claiming the deposit was paid on a different date while another insisted no money had been paid at all.
Justice Kamau also rejected the lower court’s conclusion that Benson had failed to prove the legality of the land transfer because he did not produce Land Control Board consent documents or transfer forms.
Quoting evidence given by the parties’ mother, the judge noted that she had confirmed the transfer documents had been signed.He observed that Land Control Board consent would ordinarily be submitted directly to the Lands Registry during registration and would not necessarily remain in the possession of the registered owner.
The court therefore allowed the appeal, upheld Benson’s ownership of the property and dismissed the family’s counterclaim.However, the judge noted that uncertainty remained over whether Benson had paid the outstanding balance of Sh300,000 under the disputed agreement.
To settle the matter and reduce the likelihood of further conflict, the court directed that the outstanding amount be offset against the legal costs awarded to Benson in both the lower court and the appeal.
Any remaining balance after taxation of costs will be paid to the estate of the late Shadrack Kamau Muriba.In his final orders, Justice Kamau sought to bring the family dispute to a close by directing that each member retain the portion of land originally allocated by their late father.
“For the avoidance of doubt,” the judge ruled, “each party to remain in what each got from their late father.”
About Author
