Kenya: Man Loses Bid to Challenge Uncle's Inheritance After 15-Year Court Battle

Nairobi — A Nairobi man has lost a protracted 15-year battle to claim a share of his late grandfather's property after the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision granting his uncle full ownership.

In the judgment delivered on Friday, Justices Daniel Musinga, Mumbi Ngugi, and George Odunga dismissed an appeal by Kenneth Kaburu Kimani, who had sought to overturn Justice Lydia Achode's 2019 ruling that vested Dagoretti/Uthiru/38 solely in his uncle, Mugwe Magua.

The land in dispute traces back to the family of James Magua Ngando, who died in 1963, leaving behind two wives and several parcels of land in Gikambura and Dagoretti.

According to court records, Ngando apportioned the properties between his two households during his lifetime -- giving Dagoretti/Uthiru/38 to his second wife, Marion Njeri Magua (the mother of Mugwe Magua), and Dagoretti/Uthiru/39 to his son Leonard James Kimani, Kenneth's late father.

Despite initially consenting to the confirmation of the grant in 2009, Leonard later protested, claiming the land should be shared equally between himself and Magua.

Contested consent

He alleged that he had been suffering from amnesia when signing the consent -- a claim his son Kenneth pursued after Leonard's death in 2014.

However, the appellate judges dismissed the argument, noting that no medical evidence was produced to prove Leonard lacked mental capacity at the time.

"There is always a presumption that every person is of sound mind until the contrary is proved," the Court observed, ruling that the claim of amnesia had not been substantiated.

The Court also upheld the High Court's finding that Magua had been in "exclusive and undisturbed occupation" of the property since 1969, developing it extensively by building houses, cowsheds, and rehabilitating a borehole.

In affirming that a constructive trust existed in Magua's favor, the judges noted that it would be inequitable to deny him full ownership, as his late mother had held the land for his benefit.

The Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety but ordered each party to bear their own costs, citing the family nature of the dispute.

Read the original article on Capital FM.