Parents can sell land without consulting their children, court rules
The judge said children should stop having a notion that what belongs to their parents is theirs as well.
A court in Kisii has made a landmark ruling granting parents the freedom to sell their land without consulting their children.
Judge Munyao Sila of the Lands court made the ruling last evening stating that it is likely to draw extreme reactions from the parties involved.
In the case, two children, Jacques Orangi Ayienda and Donald Bosire Ayienda, had accused their father, John Ayienda Orangi, of selling their ‘ancestral land' to some two buyers namely Edward Makori Oganga and Stephen Amwolma Magogo.
While the two children affirmed that their father was indeed the registered proprietor of the land, they argued that he only held the title deed in their trust as the property was ancestral and could not sell it.
However, Justice Munyao in his judgment noted that the property is not ancestral land held in trust for the family and therefore the father was free to deal with it whichever way he wished.
“The court is persuaded that the first defendant (father), freely owned the land and was entitled to deal with it as he pleased,” said Justice Munyao.
He added that there was no law cited supporting contention that children have a right to compel their parents to consult them when dealing with their land.
In the judgement, which is likely to set precedent in many land disputes pitting parents and their children, the judge stated that it is time that children stopped having a notion that what belongs to their parents is theirs as well.
“In fact, it is despicable, if not outrageous, for a child to assert that his father or mother, must subdivide his land in a particular way, and proceed to sue his parent because he/she does not wish to deal with the land in the way proposed by the child,” said justice Munyao.
“It was his land and he could do whatever he wanted with it… the 2nd and 3rd Defendants (his children) had no right to compel the 1st defendant (their father) to subdivide his land in a certain way. Neither can they purport to attempt to reverse a sale that was freely entered into by their late father. The property was never held in their trust” he went on.
He added, “I regret to tell the defendants that they have to live with the fact that their father decided to sell the land. He was the owner of the land and nothing barred him from selling it.”
“The conduct of the 2nd and 3rd defendant (children) was, and remains, shameful. It is abominable. They relentlessly hounded their father; they demanded that he distributes the land in the form that they themselves wanted; even when their father gave them some land, they complained that it was too little; they sued their father before the chief, the clan, and before the tribunal; they failed to give their father peace.”
The judge noted that all these happened despite the fact that it was their father who took them to school and educated them up to university level and made them to be what they are today.
“They are thankless… They have forgotten that their father took care of them when they were wobbly and helpless tots and raised them to be responsible adults. They have to live with the fact that they led their father to sell the land so that he can have peace. They cannot be heard to complain,” the judge concluded.
The Marani Land Disputes Tribunal had initially ruled in favour of the children, ordering that the land revert back to the ownership of their father.
But the land buyers filed a suit to contend that the tribunal’s decision was an illegality and null and void and sought to have their titles restored.
The children later filed counterclaim suits to assert that their father held the title in their trust as the land was ancestral land.
The judge declared the orders issued by the Marani Land Disputes Tribunal null and void.
