Real Estate Litigation 2026

Last Updated March 12, 2026

Kenya

Law and Practice

Authors



Garane & Somane Advocates is a premier dispute resolution firm distinguished by its over 30 years of combined experience. Operating from strategic hubs in Nairobi, Mombasa and Malindi, the firm is a recognised authority in high-stakes constitutional litigation and complex banking and real estate disputes. The practice is particularly esteemed for representing financial institutions and developers in contentious matters involving the validity of charges, mortgage enforcement and property rights. The firm is a powerhouse in constitutional and administrative law, frequently handling petitions that protect property rights against regulatory overreach. In the banking sector, the team offers deep expertise in securities litigation, successfully defending the enforceability of bank charges and mortgages. Its real estate practice encompasses the full spectrum of mandates, from high-value joint venture disputes to defending development approvals in the Land and Environment Court, ensuring commercial certainty for clients.

Landlords possess an implied right to access leased premises for necessary repairs. The Land Act 2012 grants landlords a statutory right to enter property for inspection and repairs, while The Rent Restriction Act (Cap. 296) provides similar provisions for controlled tenancies. Landlords typically must provide seven days’ notice to respect tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment and privacy.

Where tenants unreasonably refuse access, landlords may pursue lease forfeiture under the Land Act 2012 by serving a Notice of Forfeiture specifying the breach. For controlled commercial tenancies under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap. 301), the Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT) can issue compliance orders restraining illegal tenant actions. The BPRT, established under Cap. 301, provides an accessible forum for commercial tenancy disputes, offering faster resolution than conventional courts.

Landlords may also seek court orders from the Environment and Land Court compelling access through mandatory injunctions or specific performance orders. Additionally, landlords can claim damages for expenses incurred due to access denial, requiring specific pleading with supporting evidence. Self-help measures like forcing entry are unlawful and expose landlords to trespass and harassment claims.

Regulators have a minimal direct role in routine access disputes. County governments and public health authorities may intervene where lack of repairs creates public health hazards or safety risks, though most disputes are resolved through contractual remedies and tribunal or court applications.

In genuine emergencies like fire, flooding, gas leaks, burst pipes, electrical hazards or imminent structural collapse, landlords may enter without prior tenant consent or court authorisation. The emergency must be genuine and imminent. While no prior notice is required, landlords should document circumstances thoroughly through photographs, witness statements and where practical, police notification before entry. Following emergency access, landlords must promptly notify tenants in writing explaining the emergency, actions taken and any damage caused.

If tenants actively obstruct emergency access causing property damage or endangering lives, landlords may pursue damages claims and potentially lease termination grounds. Landlords claiming false emergencies face liability for trespass, breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment.

When a tenant’s refusal to permit access causes damage or nuisance such as water leaks affecting neighbouring units and damaging units below, or structural issues requiring multi-unit access, affected neighbours can sue the refusing tenant directly for private nuisance or seek Environment and Land Court orders compelling co-operation. The landlord may join proceedings or seek indemnity from the tenant under lease terms.

The landlord’s position strengthens considerably when neighbouring tenants are affected, with courts more readily granting urgent mandatory injunctions where refusal impacts multiple parties. In extreme cases creating uninhabitable conditions for neighbours, this may constitute grounds for expedited eviction. County government or public health authority involvement may occur where public health or safety is at risk, though resolution typically occurs through civil court proceedings.

Kenyan law provides substantial protection against landlord harassment grounded in common law (implied covenant of quiet enjoyment), statutory provisions and constitutional rights to privacy and dignity under Articles 28 and 31 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Harassment includes repeated unauthorised entries, intimidation, utility disconnections, threats, changing locks or creating conditions intended to render premises uninhabitable.

The Rent Restriction Act (Cap. 296) criminalises landlord harassment in controlled residential tenancies, making it an offence punishable by fine not exceeding KES6,000s, imprisonment for up to six months, or both. Section 23 penalises depriving tenants of services. The Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act protects commercial tenants by preventing arbitrary changes to tenancy terms. Landlords cannot terminate tenancies or alter terms without serving formal written notice in prescribed form (Form A), which cannot take effect earlier than two months from receipt and must specify termination grounds.

This procedural protection was emphasised in Munaver N Alibhai T/A Diani Boutique v South Coast Fitness & Sports Centre Limited [1995] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal found a termination notice void for failing to comply with Section 4 requirements.

Tenants facing harassment may seek injunctions from the Environment and Land Court, damages for breach of quiet enjoyment, or declarations that landlord actions are unlawful. The Rent Restriction Tribunal (for residential controlled tenancies) and Business Premises Rent Tribunal (for commercial controlled tenancies) possess jurisdiction to address harassment, issuing orders restraining harassment, requiring service restoration and imposing protective conditions. The Tribunals are fully automated for online filing, improving accessibility.

The legal status of a rental unit determines the specific forum and remedies available, though fundamental protections against harassment apply across all tenancy types. For low-rent residential controlled tenancies under the Rent Restriction Act (dwelling houses with standard rent not exceeding KES2,500 monthly), the RRT provides specialised jurisdiction with streamlined procedures and specific statutory penalties.

Commercial controlled tenancies under Cap. 301 – unwritten tenancies or written tenancies for periods not exceeding five years or containing termination provisions within five years – benefit from BPRT jurisdiction addressing harassment within its broader mandate to prevent arbitrary eviction and ensure fair treatment.

For market-rate residential and commercial tenancies falling outside statutory protection, remedies rely on general contract law, common law quiet enjoyment principles and constitutional rights. Tenants sue in the Environment and Land Court or Magistrates’ Courts seeking injunctions, damages or declarations. While the same fundamental protections apply, market-rate tenants lack specialised tribunal access and specific statutory penalties available to controlled tenancies.

When the courts, RRT or BPRT determine that harassment occurred, several consequences follow. They may issue cease and desist orders prohibiting specific harassing conduct, with violation constituting contempt punishable by fines or imprisonment. Under Section 29 of the Rent Restriction Act, landlords found guilty face criminal penalties: fine not exceeding KES6,000, imprisonment for up to six months, or both.

A harassment finding profoundly impacts pending or subsequent possession proceedings. Courts and tribunals typically refuse eviction applications where harassment occurred, viewing eviction attempts as continuation of harassment. This reflects the principle in Nyulia v Macharia & another [2024] eKLR, where the tribunal held that landlords failing to follow proper termination procedures cannot obtain possession.

Courts award damages and costs against landlords found to have harassed tenants, often on an indemnity basis where conduct is particularly egregious. Harassment findings may attract county authority scrutiny of the landlord’s property portfolio, affecting permits, licences and approval of new developments.

Kenya maintains limited rent regulation through statutory or controlled tenancies. The Rent Restriction Act creates the primary residential protection regime, applying to dwelling houses with standard rent not exceeding KES2,500 monthly. Standard rent is defined as the rent at which property was let on 1 January 1981, or if not let or erected then, a rent assessed by the RRT. These are “rent-controlled units” with statutorily fixed rents that cannot be altered without RRT approval.

The Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act creates parallel protections for commercial premises. Section 2 defines controlled tenancy as tenancy of a shop, hotel or catering establishment that either has not been reduced to writing or has been reduced to writing for a period not exceeding five years or contains termination provisions within five years from commencement. “Shop” means premises occupied wholly or mainly for retail or wholesale trade or business or rendering services for money or money’s worth.

Commercial controlled tenancies differ significantly from residential rent control. Rents are not strictly capped but can be changed or stabilised with landlords required to issue formal notices that tenants can dispute at the BPRT. Protection focuses on preventing arbitrary eviction and ensuring fair procedures rather than absolute rent restrictions.

Properties outside statutory protection schemes operate as free market tenancies with landlords setting rents without restriction and terminating tenancies according to contract terms and general common law principles.

Statutory tenancies confer security of tenure, meaning tenancies generally continue automatically. However, landlords can legally terminate or refuse renewal under specific exceptions where rent lawfully due has not been paid or the tenant fails other obligations:

  • the tenant is guilty of conduct constituting nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or is convicted of using premises for immoral or illegal purposes;
  • property deterioration owing to tenant neglect or default;
  • the tenant wilfully gave notice to quit and the landlord contracted to sell or let the premises, making renewal unfeasible; or
  • premises are reasonably required by the landlord for personal or family occupation.

For commercial controlled tenancies under Cap. 301, landlords must serve notice specifying grounds for conversion. The notice takes effect after two months unless the tenant opposes and refers the matter to the Business Premises Rent Tribunal, which then determines if conversion is justified. If parties mutually agree, they enter a new written lease exceeding five years without early termination clauses (except for breach), registered at the Lands Registry to exit controlled status.

For residential controlled tenancies under Cap. 296 (rent below KES2,500 monthly), no straightforward process exists. Conversion may occur through exceeding rent thresholds, major renovations or mutual Tribunal-approved agreement.

Conversion suits properties no longer needing protection due to substantial improvements, where controlled rents prevent maintenance, business maturity warrants flexibility or parties voluntarily seek market-based arrangements. Conversion is permanent, affecting all future tenancies.

The Rent Restriction Tribunal, established under Section 4 of the Rent Restriction Act (Cap. 296), regulates residential controlled tenancies, restricting rent increases, protecting possession rights, preventing premium exaction and fixing standard rents. The RRT is fully automated in Nairobi for online filing, improving accessibility and efficiency.

The BPRT handles commercial controlled tenancies. Its jurisdiction includes protecting tenants from arbitrary eviction and exploitation, ensuring landlords receive fair returns, timely hearing and determination of disputes, handling termination of controlled tenancies, issuing distress orders, and undertaking rent assessment and reassessment.

Both Tribunals monitor compliance primarily through reactive complaint mechanisms rather than proactive enforcement. When tenants report violations, Tribunals investigate and take corrective action. Tribunal orders are enforceable through ELC courts, with violations constituting contempt.

When commercial landlords serve notices to cure defaults providing unrealistic timeframes for remediation, tenants may seek injunctive relief under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules and in Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358. Commercial tenants apply to the Environment and Land Court for interlocutory injunctions restraining forfeiture or sale if cure periods are unreasonably short.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, commercial tenants must demonstrate:

  • prima facie case with probability of success, showing the cure period is genuinely inadequate;
  • irreparable harm inadequately compensable by damages if the injunction is refused, such as business destruction or unquantifiable losses; and
  • if the court is in doubt, balance of convenience favouring the tenant.

Tenants must demonstrate good faith efforts to cure including concrete steps taken, resources committed, contractors engaged and realistic completion timelines.

In Kenya, failure to obtain an injunction within the cure period or refer the case to the BPRT within the notice timeframe means the notice takes effect on its expiry date. The landlord's remedies become immediately available. The tenant must vacate or face forcible removal, with remaining in possession exposing the tenant to mesne profits claims at punitive rates.

Despite losing injunctive protection, tenants retain alternative remedies: defending subsequent eviction proceedings by demonstrating invalid lease termination, pursuing damages claims for wrongful termination, negotiating surrender terms mitigating business disruption, seeking lease modifications addressing landlord concerns, or seeking relief against forfeiture under the Land Act where forfeiture would be unconscionable.

For commercial tenancies under controlled tenancies, tenants may apply to the BPRT for injunctions preventing further bad faith notices. For controlled residential tenancies, such applications proceed to the Rent Restriction Tribunal. For non-controlled commercial leases and residential tenancies, applications proceed to the Environment and Land Court or Magistrates’ Court. Tenants may file for declaratory judgments affirming that landlord notices made in bad faith are invalid or unenforceable. The courts and the tribunal invalidate improper notices if the same is proven.

Tenants may also sue for damages resulting from bad faith notice practices. The Rent Restriction Act and Cap. 301 forbid “annoyance” and harassment. If a landlord’s conduct substantially interferes with tenant use and enjoyment through disconnecting utilities, failing to make repairs, or creating hostile environments, the tenant may have grounds to terminate the lease, claiming constructive eviction and seeking damages.

Courts award costs to successful parties, but bad faith conduct may justify indemnity costs or elevated awards punishing landlord misconduct. In egregious cases, courts may award exemplary damages beyond compensatory amounts.

Personal guarantees are most common in Kenyan commercial tenancies, with individual guarantors pledging personal assets guaranteeing tenant performance. There are also corporate guarantees which involve corporate institutions guaranteeing tenant obligations.

Guarantees may be limited, meaning guarantors are liable for only portions of debt, or unlimited, meaning they are liable for the entire debt.

Security deposits, while not technically guarantees, serve similar functions in Kenyan tenancies; they are held against future defaults and applied toward unpaid rent or damages.

A guarantor cannot unilaterally revoke a continuing guarantee once given without creditor consent. Guarantees are binding contracts creating enforceable obligations until specified termination events occur or underlying obligations are fully satisfied. However, guarantors may be released if the underlying lease is materially altered without their consent, with substantial rent increases, term extensions or fundamental term changes potentially discharging guarantors.

An aggrieved landlord usually has choice of remedies: claiming a one-off liquidated sum equal to outstanding rent and charges, with the guarantor’s obligation ending once recovered or requiring the guarantor to take a new lease for the residue of the disclaimed lease term.

Creditors (landlords) enforce guarantees through ordinary civil suits for debt recovery in the Environment and Land Court, High Court or Magistrates’ Courts, depending on the claim amount. No special expedited procedures exist solely for guarantees, but summary judgment under Order 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules can speed up clear cases, typically resolving within three to six months for uncontested matters.

In Kenya, the recovery of real property securing a defaulted loan is primarily governed by the Land Act, 2012, particularly Sections 90, 96 and 97. It is important to note that traditional “foreclosure” – where a lender takes absolute ownership of a property to the exclusion of the borrower – is expressly prohibited. Instead, the law provides for the realisation of security through a statutory power of sale or other specific remedies.

The process is fundamentally non-judicial in nature. This allows lenders (chargees) to exercise remedies without initial court intervention, provided they strictly adhere to mandatory procedural safeguards. This statutory regime aims to balance lender efficiency with robust borrower protections. While the process is designed to be out-of-court, the Environment and Land Court retains oversight jurisdiction to intervene if a borrower challenges the legality or procedural integrity of the enforcement.

In Kenya, lenders may enforce security over the equity (shares) of a property-owning company under the Movable Property Security Rights Act, 2017 (MPSR) and the Companies Act, 2015. Shares constitute intangible movable property (choses in action) and are therefore enforced outside the Land Act regime. This provides an alternative recovery route by allowing the lender to obtain control of the entity that owns the real estate, rather than enforcing directly against the land.

For the security to be effective against third parties, it must be registered at the Collateral Registry and, where applicable, at the Companies Registry. Enforcement is typically non-judicial and driven by the terms of the security documents. In practice, lenders often rely on contractual mechanisms such as irrevocable powers of attorney and pre-signed share transfer instruments. Upon default, the lender may effect a transfer of the shares and update the company’s register of members, without issuing the statutory notices required for land charges.

However, by enforcing through equity, the lender acquires control of a company that retains its existing liabilities, including tax exposure, contingent claims and litigation risk, which would not ordinarily attach following a statutory sale of land. In addition, any appropriation of shares must comply with the MPSR’s commercial reasonableness and valuation requirements to mitigate enforcement risk.

The statutory notice requirements for non-judicial recovery under the Land Act are rigorous and strictly enforced by the courts. The process follows a mandatory sequence designed to give the borrower every opportunity to rectify the default before the property is sold.

  • Once a borrower has been in default for at least one month, the lender must serve a formal 90-day notice. This notice must clearly state the nature of the default and the specific amount required to remedy it.
  • If the default persists after the 90-day period, the lender serves a 40-day notice informing the borrower and other interested parties, including spouses and subsequent charges, of the intent to sell the property.
  • If the lender proceeds via public auction, a licensed auctioneer must serve a further 45-day redemption notice before the property is first advertised.

Notice is typically provided through personal service or registered post to the borrower’s last known address. Failure to serve these notices properly is the most common ground for courts to grant injunctions, often forcing the lender to restart the entire process.

The equity of redemption is a fundamental right in Kenyan law that allows a borrower to reclaim their property by discharging the full debt. Under Section 89 of the Land Act, this right is inviolable and cannot be restricted or “clogged” by contractual clauses. Any provision in a loan agreement that purports to limit the borrower’s right to redeem the property is void as a matter of public policy.

This right exists up until the point a binding sale contract is executed in instances where the sale is by private contract at market value and/or at the fall of the hammer where the sale is through public auction.

At the fall of the hammer and/or once a valid contract is signed and a deposit paid by a third party, the borrower’s right to redeem is extinguished, and their remedy shifts to a claim for damages if the sale was conducted improperly.

Under Kenyan law, a lender is not required to elect a single remedy following default. While Section 90 of the Land Act sets out the remedies available in respect of charged land, it does not preclude a lender from pursuing other contractual or statutory enforcement routes concurrently, including enforcement of share security or claims against guarantors. Kenyan courts permit parallel enforcement in principle, subject to equitable oversight. In particular, the way remedies are exercised must not be oppressive or have the practical effect of fettering the borrower’s equity of redemption, which subsists until completion of sale. Courts therefore focus less on the existence of concurrent remedies and more on whether the lender’s conduct is commercially reasonable and consistent with statutory and equitable protections.

Non-Judicial Process

An uncontested statutory sale typically takes six to eight months. This accounts for the mandatory notice periods (approximately 175 days), time for professional valuation and the marketing period.

Judicial Process

If a borrower challenges the sale in the Environment and Land Court, the process can be delayed by two to five years. While the Land Act encourages swift resolution, the backlog of cases and frequent use of interlocutory injunctions often extend the timeline.

The efficiency of the non-judicial foreclosure route is its primary advantage, but this efficiency depends entirely on the lender’s strict adherence to procedural precision. Any defect in the notice sequence can transform a six-month recovery into a multi-year litigation battle.

A deficiency arises when the net proceeds from a foreclosure sale are insufficient to cover the total debt, including interest and costs. The lender calculates this by deducting all sale-related expenses, such as auctioneer costs, valuation fees and legal costs from the final bid price.

The lender’s primary remedy for a deficiency is to sue the borrower or the guarantors for a money judgment. This is based on the personal covenant to repay contained in the charge or guarantee document. Once a judgment is obtained, the lender can execute against any other assets owned by the borrower.

However, Kenyan law imposes a significant limitation: the lender must prove they obtained the “best price reasonably obtainable”. Under Section 97, if a property is sold for less than 75% of its market value, there is a statutory presumption that the lender breached their duty of care. In such instances, courts may bar the lender from recovering the deficiency or reduce the amount claimed to reflect what the property should have fetched in a fair sale.

In the Kenyan real estate sector, joint ventures (JVs) are primarily structured as special purpose vehicles (SPVs) incorporated as private limited liability companies. This structure is preferred by institutional investors and landowners alike because it provides a clear “corporate veil”, a robust governance framework and the ability to issue different classes of shares to reflect varying contributions (eg, land versus capital).

Alternatively, the limited liability partnership (LLP) has gained significant traction. It offers a hybrid advantage: the limited liability of a company combined with the tax transparency of a partnership, where profits are taxed at the partner level rather than the entity level. While purely contractual (unincorporated) JVs exist, they are generally restricted to short-term project management roles as they lack the legal capacity to hold land titles in their own name.

Regardless of the structure, co-operation is not merely a commercial expectation but a legal necessity. Most JV agreements (JVAs) include express clauses requiring “utmost good faith” and “best endeavours” to achieve project milestones. Kenyan courts increasingly view these JVs as quasi-partnerships, implying a duty of co-operation even where the contract is silent, as a lack of synergy often leads to the total failure of the “community of interest” required for a valid venture.

Duties

Where a JV is structured as a corporate SPV, nominee directors owe codified fiduciary duties under Sections 140–147 of the Companies Act. Key obligations include the duty to promote the success of the company, exercise independent judgment and avoid conflicts of interest. Beyond statute, partners owe a common law duty of uberrimae fidei (utmost good faith), prohibiting the secret diversion of JV opportunities.

Remedies

  • Unfair prejudice – is the primary remedy for “oppression”. A partner may petition the court if the JV’s affairs are conducted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to their interests. Courts frequently order share buyouts at fair value.
  • Derivative action – allows a partner to initiate litigation on the company’s behalf for a director’s breach of duty, negligence or default.
  • Equitable relief – partners may seek injunctions to prevent asset dissipation or an account of profits for breaches of trust.
  • Winding up – under the Insolvency Act, a court may dissolve a deadlocked JV on “just and equitable” grounds.

Contractual remedies, such as “shoot-out” or “put call” options in the JVA, typically provide the first line of defence before seeking these statutory reliefs.

Management deadlocks are a frequent reality in real estate JVs, particularly when voting rights are split 50/50. When governing documents are vague, the Companies Act default rules apply (simple majority for ordinary business, 75% for special resolutions), which often exacerbates a stalemate. To avoid project paralysis, well-drafted Kenyan JVAs utilise sophisticated “exit-entry” mechanisms.

  • The Russian Roulette Clause – one partner offers a buy-out price; the other must either sell at that price or buy out the proposer at the same price.
  • The Texas Shootout – both partners submit sealed bids to an auditor; the highest bidder must acquire the other’s interest.

If contractual mechanisms fail, the Environment and Land Court (ELC) or the Commercial Division has the power to appoint a receiver manager to stabilise the project. Winding up the venture on “just and equitable grounds” remains the final resort, though courts prefer remedies that preserve the business’s “substratum” whenever possible.

Kenyan law is strictly protective of the right to a fair trial (Article 50 of the Constitution). Consequently, “automatic judgment” provisions – where a party can enter a judgment against a partner without a court hearing – are generally unenforceable as they constitute an unconstitutional ouster of the court’s jurisdiction. However, Consent Orders or Confessions of Judgment that are formally adopted by the court are fully enforceable.

Regarding provisional remedies like injunctions, a JVA may state that a breach entitles a party to an injunction. While helpful evidence, such clauses do not bind the court. An applicant must still satisfy the Giella v Cassman Brown test:

  • establishing a prima facie case with a probability of success;
  • proving that they will suffer irreparable injury that cannot be compensated by damages; and
  • demonstrating that the balance of convenience tips in their favour.

Special Considerations in JV Dissolution

Winding down real estate JVs in Kenya involves complex legal, tax and regulatory considerations beyond simple closure. Most JVs use SPVs governed by the Companies Act, 2015, and Insolvency Act, 2015.

Deadlock and Dissolution

Where JVAs lack exit clauses, partners may petition courts to wind up companies on “just and equitable grounds” under the Insolvency Act when the venture’s core purpose has disappeared or trust has completely broken down. However, courts may refuse winding up if alternative remedies like buyouts exist. Well-drafted JVAs include shotgun clauses (one partner offers a price; the other must buy or sell at that price) or Texas Shoot-out provisions (sealed bids; highest bidder buys out the other).

Real Estate and Tax Implications

Agricultural land transfers require Land Control Board consent; without it, transactions are void. Partners must choose between partition (physical land division requiring new titles) or sale with proceeds division. Capital Gains Tax (5%) and stamp duty (4% urban, 2% rural) apply to property transfers, though restructuring exemptions may apply. KRA tax clearance certificates are mandatory before company strike-off.

Liability and Exit Structures

Dissolution agreements must address long-tail liabilities including construction defects, environmental contamination and tenant claims through detailed indemnifications with security mechanisms like holdbacks or escrow. Corporate JVs follow formal liquidation with limited liability, while contractual JVs terminate via notice with potential joint and several liability. County approvals, environmental compliance under EMCA, and tenant notifications are required before completing dissolution.

In Kenyan real estate practice, guarantees are essential to bridge the “security gap” in high-value financing. The most common forms include the following.

  • Personal guarantees – usually provided by directors or high net worth individuals to secure corporate loans. In Mwaniki Wa Ndegwa v National Bank of Kenya, the court affirmed that such liability is not capped at the principal but extends to all accrued interest and costs.
  • Completion guarantees – specific to construction, where a parent company or a bank (via a performance bond) guarantees that a project will reach “practical completion” according to the approved plans.
  • On-demand (performance) bonds – unlike traditional guarantees, these create a primary liability. The guarantor must pay upon a simple written demand, independent of any underlying dispute between the developer and the contractor.
  • Limited versus unlimited guarantees – limited guarantees cap the guarantor’s exposure to a specific sum, whereas unlimited guarantees allow the lender to pursue the guarantor for the borrower’s entire debt.

“Bad boy” guarantees, common in sophisticated commercial real estate, limit a guarantor's liability unless specific “bad acts” occur. These carve-outs typically include fraud, willful misappropriation of rent or unauthorised transfers of the charged property.

Under Kenyan law, these are interpreted according to the contra proferentem rule: any ambiguity in the bad act trigger is construed against the lender who drafted the document. While rare in retail banking, they are standard in private equity-backed real estate deals. If a trigger is met, the loan converts from non-recourse to full recourse, allowing the lender to pursue the guarantor’s personal assets.

The Law of Contract Act requires every guarantee to be in writing and signed by the guarantor to be enforceable.

The No Exhaustion Rule

A landmark shift in Kenyan law occurred with the 2025/2026 ruling in Bank of India v We Hotel and Suites. The High Court clarified that a lender is not obligated to exhaust its remedies against the principal borrower or the charged property before suing the guarantor. If the guarantee is “unconditional and absolute”, the lender can proceed directly against the guarantor the moment a default occurs. This effectively treats the guarantor as a co-debtor rather than a secondary backup.

Waivers of Defences

Most bank-drafted guarantees include broad waivers where the guarantor gives up the right to notice of loan variations. While generally enforceable, Kenyan courts apply the “material prejudice” test. If a lender significantly increases the interest rate or the loan amount without the guarantor’s consent in a way that is “materially prejudicial”, the guarantor may still be discharged from liability despite the waiver clause.

For lenders seeking rapid recovery against guarantors, the Summary Judgment procedure under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules is the primary tool. Because a guarantee represents a “liquidated demand” (a specific sum of money), a lender can apply for judgment without a full trial. To stop this, a guarantor must show a “triable defence” task that has become significantly harder following recent pro-lender jurisprudence.

Statutory Rules and Concurrent Remedies

  • Section 90 of the Land Act, 2012 – empowers lenders with cumulative remedies. A lender can simultaneously pursue a statutory power of sale over the land while filing a suit against the guarantor in the Commercial Court.
  • Subrogation – if a guarantor pays the debt in full, they are subrogated to the lender’s rights. They can then step into the lender’s shoes to foreclose on the borrower’s property to recover their outlay.
  • Double recovery prohibited – while a lender can pursue multiple paths at once, they cannot recover more than the total debt. Any amount recovered from an auction of the property must be credited against the claim against the guarantor.

Asset-Specific Receiver

In Kenya, the appointment of a receiver to oversee distressed land assets is primarily governed by the Land Act (No 6 of 2012). The process is a statutory remedy available to a chargee (lender) to recover sums from the income of a charged land due without necessarily resorting to an immediate sale. It provides the specific framework for receivers appointed over the income of charged land.

The appointment process

The process follows a strict statutory timeline to ensure the chargor (borrower) is afforded due process.

  • Notice of default (Section 90) – after a one-month default, the lender must issue a written notice specifying the breach. The borrower then has three months to settle arrears or two months to rectify non-monetary defaults.
  • Exercise of remedy – if the borrower fails to comply within 90 days of the notice, the lender may proceed to appoint a receiver under Section 90(3)(b).
  • Notice of appointment – before the actual appointment, the lender must serve a specific notice in the prescribed form on the borrower and wait for 30 days to elapse.
  • The appointment must be made in writing and signed by the lender via an instrument of appointment.

Corporate Receiver

Kenya’s insolvency framework has shifted from the creditor-centric receivership model of the repealed Companies Act to the rescue-oriented administration process under the Insolvency Act. While administration provides distressed companies “breathing space” to remain going concerns, a dual regime persists: security instruments created before 2015 remain under the old rules, while new appointments follow modern procedures. Overseeing this transition is the Official Receiver, who supervises proceedings, investigates distressed entities and ensures insolvency practitioners uphold professional standards while protecting the public interest during restructurings.

Under the current Insolvency Regulations 2016, an administrator can be appointed through three distinct channels.

  • Court Order (Administration Order) – a court can appoint an administrator if the company is or is likely to become insolvent. This is initiated via an application to the court by creditors or directors.
  • Company/directors’ appointment – directors can appoint an administrator by passing a resolution, often used to initiate voluntary administration. This is a quick route not requiring creditor approval.
  • Holder of a Qualifying Floating Charge (QFC) – a secured creditor holding a charge over substantially all of the company’s assets may appoint an administrator if the instrument explicitly invokes Section 534 of the Act.

The Fiduciary’s Qualifications

Any person appointed to manage distressed assets in Kenya must be a Licensed Insolvency Practitioner (IP). The Official Receiver within the Business Registration Service maintains a public register of licensed IPs, updated annually and published in the Kenya Gazette. To qualify, practitioners must be members in good standing of the Law Society of Kenya, the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya, or the Institute of Certified Secretaries, holding both a valid practising certificate from their professional body and an IP licence from the Official Receiver.

The Insolvency Regulations 2016 require practitioners to decline appointments where conflicts of interest exist, such as having served as the company’s auditor or legal adviser within the preceding two to three years.

Under the Land Act, a common scenario for receivership involves a lender appointing a Receiver of Income to collect rent from a commercial property to service a defaulted loan. Notably, the owner does not need to be insolvent for this remedy to be exercised. The power to appoint is triggered solely by a contractual default and the expiration of the mandatory 90-day and 30-day statutory notice periods, allowing the lender to recover funds without proving the company’s financial collapse.

Receivership under the Insolvency Act involves a secured creditor, typically a commercial bank, exercising its rights under a debenture created before the commencement of the Insolvency Act 2015, following a material breach of contract. This includes monetary defaults where the debtor fails to repay loans or meet interest obligations after a 21-day statutory demand for debts exceeding KES100,000, or non-monetary breaches such as violating financial covenants or unauthorised disposal of charged assets.

Kenyan courts will allow bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings for single asset entities. The Insolvency Act 2015 does not contain any special exemptions or restrictions for single asset entities, commonly SPVs. This suggests that courts would entertain bankruptcy or insolvency applications for single asset entities on the same basis as any other corporate entity, provided the statutory requirements are met.

The Act applies broadly to “natural persons, partnerships, limited liability partnerships, companies and other corporate bodies established by any written law”. Each company in Kenya is recognised as a separate legal entity with its own distinct debt obligations, regardless of whether it holds a single asset or multiple assets.

Requirements for a Single-Asset Insolvency

It is important to note that in Kenya’s legal framework, “bankruptcy” technically refers to insolvency proceedings for natural persons, while corporate entities undergo “insolvency” proceedings, therefore, the correct term for a company holding a single asset is “single-asset insolvency” rather than “single-asset bankruptcy”. The process is therefore governed by the standard thresholds for administration or liquidation.

To satisfy the requirements for a single-asset insolvency, the applicant must demonstrate the following.

  • The entity must be proven insolvent through either cash-flow insolvency, where a creditor serves a Statutory Demand for a liquidated debt above KES100,000 and the company fails to pay or secure the debt within 21 days, or balance-sheet insolvency, where total liabilities exceed asset values, common in single-asset real estate cases when project costs or loans exceed the current market value of the land and any incomplete structures.
  • The application to the High Court must be supported by a Statement of Affairs detailing the single asset, its valuation, and all registered encumbrances such as bank charges or caveats; a Statutory Declaration for out-of-court appointments affirming compliance with the Act; and a named Licensed Insolvency Practitioner who has consented to the appointment and provided an opinion that the insolvency objective, such as corporate rescue, is reasonably achievable.

While the law allows single-asset insolvency, recent judicial trends following the Cytonn [2024-2025] precedents add a practical independence requirement that applicants demonstrate the SPV maintained its own books of accounts and operated as a separate entity rather than merely serving as an alter-ego or conduit of the parent developer.

Impact on a Mortgage Lender’s Ability to Foreclose

Filing for bankruptcy triggers an automatic stay, a legal injunction that temporarily halts foreclosure and collection actions. While this provides borrowers “breathing room”, lenders can petition the court to “lift the stay” by proving cause, such as bad faith or lack of adequate security protection.

Additionally, bankruptcy may discharge a borrower’s personal liability, preventing wage garnishment or lawsuits; however, the lien remains attached to the property. Consequently, if the debt is not settled, the lender retains the right to seize the asset. Furthermore, bankruptcy bars lenders from seeking deficiency judgments if a foreclosure sale fails to cover the full loan balance.

Impact on Remedies Against a Guarantor

Bankruptcy filing by the primary borrower does not provide an automatic stay for the guarantor. Most Kenyan bank guarantees are drafted as “primary obligations” (often titled as a Guarantee and Indemnity). This means the secured lender can pursue the guarantor directly for the full amount as soon as the borrower defaults, regardless of the borrower’s bankruptcy status.

The “fresh start” policy does not discharge the debt itself; it only prevents the lender from suing the bankrupt person directly. The guarantor remains legally tied to the underlying debt.

Refer further to 2.5 Pursuing Claims Against Borrowers and Foreclosure Simultaneously.

Arbitration clauses are popular in high-value real estate transactions in Kenya, reflecting a systemic shift toward alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mandated by the Constitution and necessitated by commercial realities.

In the current real estate market, arbitration is the default dispute resolution mechanism for:

  • large-scale developments – eg, commercial leases, mixed-use developments and off-plan housing projects;
  • construction-linked contracts – since real estate and construction are inextricably linked, the use of FIDIC contracts which favour adjudication and arbitration has normalised this practice across the sector; and
  • foreign direct investment (FDI) – for international investors and institutional developers (eg, those operating in Special Economic Zones like Tatu City), arbitration is non-negotiable as it offers a neutral, confidential forum that avoids the perceived unpredictability of local litigation.

The prevalence of these clauses is anchored in the Constitution of Kenya 2010, which explicitly directs the judiciary to promote ADR. This pro-arbitration judicial stance has given parties the confidence that their choice of forum will be respected. Significant backlog in the Environment and Land Court (ELC) is also a trigger for the prevalence.

Advantages

  • Speed and efficiency – arbitration bypasses the congested Environment and Land Court (ELC), which is often hampered by significant backlogs. While litigation can take years, arbitral tribunals typically deliver awards within six to 12 months.
  • Technical expertise – unlike traditional courts, arbitration allows parties to appoint industry experts, such as senior surveyors or architects as arbitrators. This ensures decisions are grounded in practical industry reality rather than purely legal theory.
  • Confidentiality – arbitration provides a private forum for sensitive commercial or joint venture disputes. This protects trade secrets and financial structures from the public record, avoiding the reputational risks inherent in the constitutional principle of “open justice”.
  • Finality – under Section 35 of the Arbitration Act, challenges to awards are restricted to narrow grounds like fraud or lack of jurisdiction. This prevents the lengthy appellate delays common in litigation, providing immediate commercial certainty.

Disadvantages

  • High costs – unlike the court system where the state provides facilities, parties must fund the arbitrator’s fees, venue, and administration. In high-value real estate disputes, these significant costs are often required upfront.
  • Joinder and fragmentation – real estate disputes frequently involve third parties like subcontractors or the National Land Commission (NLC). Because arbitration is strictly contractual, an arbitrator cannot compel non-parties to join, which can result in fragmented, parallel litigation in court.
  • Irreversibility risk – the absence of a traditional appeal as of right means there is no “safety net” for errors of law or fact. A flawed award is nearly impossible to overturn unless it meets the high threshold of being contrary to public policy or misinterpretation of law.
  • Enforcement bottlenecks – while the arbitral process is fast, enforcement requires High Court intervention. Uncooperative parties can use the recognition and enforcement stage to cause delays.

The prevalence of mediation in Kenya’s real estate transactions has reached an all-time high, driven by constitutional mandates. It is now established as a first-tier strategy, largely through the Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM), where the Judiciary subjects Environment and Land Court (ELC) matters to mandatory screening. This shift has released billions in stuck capital back into the economy through efficient settlements.

In the private sector, mediation is a standard feature of modern Agreements for Sale and Joint Ventures via multi-tier dispute resolution clauses. Off-plan developers increasingly favour this route to resolve completion and defect disputes privately, avoiding the public blacklisting of litigation. Furthermore, mediation is the dominant mechanism for emotive succession and boundary disputes, offering a win-win alternative to adversarial courts. Crucially, under the Mediation (Pilot Project) Rules, settlements can now be registered and enforced as court decrees, providing the legal certainty that has sparked a surge in private mediation.

Provisional remedies in Kenya include equitable reliefs and statutory safeguards aimed at freezing a property’s legal status pending determination of substantive rights.

Judicial Remedies

  • Temporary injunctions – under the Civil Procedure Rules, these prohibit dealing with, alienating or selling disputed land until the lawsuit is determined, maintaining the status quo to prevent irreparable harm.
  • Inhibitions – court orders registered directly against the title prevent any dealings for a specified period, more powerful than standard injunctions.
  • Appointment of a receiver – in complex commercial disputes, courts may appoint a Receiver Manager to preserve income and maintain the property during litigation.

Statutory Protective Entries

  • Cautions (caveats) – lodged by persons claiming an interest to prevent disposition without notice to the cautioner.
  • Restrictions – imposed by the Land Registrar to prevent fraud, improper dealings or protect vulnerable parties such as minors or trust beneficiaries.

Kenyan law provides several mechanisms for a creditor to prevent the alienation of property.

  • Doctrine of lis pendens – once a suit concerning land is filed, any subsequent transfer is subject to the litigation’s outcome. Creditors can lodge a formal notice on a property’s title to alert the public that the asset is currently the subject of ongoing litigation.
  • Injunction and inhibition – a creditor with a specific interest in the land can apply for a Prohibitory Order or Injunction to stop a sale. If the court grants an Inhibition, the Land Registrar will not accept any documents for transfer or charging until the order is lifted.
  • Setting aside prejudicial dispositions – under the Land Registration Act, if a debtor has sold property to defeat a creditor’s claim, the creditor can apply to have that disposition set aside, and the land restored to the debtor’s name for attachment to satisfy the debt.
  • Pre-judgment attachment – if a creditor proves a debtor is about to dispose of property to obstruct execution of a future decree, the court can order attachment before final judgment is delivered.

The requirements for obtaining provisional relief vary depending on whether the remedy is judicial (requiring a court order) or administrative (lodged at the Land Registry).

Judicial remedies (obtained through the Environment and Land Court or High Court) are as follows.

  • The “Three-Pillar” test for injunctions – the applicant must demonstrate a case with a high probability of success, proof that damages cannot adequately compensate the injury and that the balance of convenience favours granting the order.
  • Undertaking as to damages– the applicant provides a formal undertaking to compensate the defendant if the injunction is wrongly granted, with courts increasingly requiring proof of financial means to satisfy this undertaking.
  • Specific requirement for inhibitions – courts will only grant inhibitions if satisfied it is “necessary to prevent a fraud or improper dealing”, a higher threshold than standard injunctions.

Administrative Remedies (obtained directly through the Land Registrar without a court order, subject to later judicial review):

  • Cautions (caveats) – any person claiming an interest can lodge a caution by filing an affidavit supporting the claim and paying the prescribed registry fee, though a court order may be required to maintain it if challenged.
  • Restrictions – the Registrar can impose restrictions on their own motion if fraud is suspected or upon application by an interested party.

The improper use of provisional remedies in Kenya, whether through non-disclosure of material facts, malice or lack of a legitimate interest exposes a plaintiff to three primary categories of risk.

Liability Under the Undertaking as to Damages

The court may direct an inquiry into damages. The plaintiff must compensate the defendant for all losses directly resulting from the injunction. In real estate, this often includes: lost profits; interest or penalties the defendant had to pay to third-party contractors or lenders because the project was stalled; and security, maintenance and taxes incurred while the property was tied up in litigation.

Statutory Damages for Wrongful Cautions

For administrative remedies like cautions, the risk is explicitly defined by statute to include:

  • any person who lodges or maintains a caution wrongfully and without reasonable cause is liable in an action for damages;
  • a plaintiff can be held liable simply for being negligent in asserting an interest they did not truly possess; and
  • the court can award compensation to any person who has sustained damage, which could include the registered owner or a bona fide third-party purchaser.

Punitive and Exemplary Damages

In cases where a remedy was used as a bullying tactic or to intentionally sabotage a competitor's transaction (abuse of court process), Kenyan courts have the discretion to award punitive or exemplary damages.

Kenyan courts, specifically the Environment and Land Court (ELC), exhibit a strong willingness to grant temporary injunctions where it is necessary to preserve the substratum of the suit. However, this willingness is tempered by a strict adherence to the three-pillar test and a growing judicial intolerance for litigation as a stall tactic in commercial transactions.

Courts generally operate on the principle that real property is unique. If a property is sold, developed or subdivided during the pendency of a trial, the eventual judgment may be nugatory. Therefore, if a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case with a probability of success, the court is typically inclined to issue an injunction to freeze the property until the merits of the case are heard.

While the court is willing to intervene, recent jurisprudence shows a shift toward protecting commercial certainty. In high-value real estate disputes for example, it has become common practice for the court to grant an injunction on the condition that the plaintiff deposits a portion of the disputed sum into a joint interest-earning account or provides a bank guarantee. This ensures the plaintiff is acting in good faith and provides a safety net for the defendant’s potential losses.

Real estate irreparable harm that cannot be quantified or remedied through monetary compensation is satisfied by:

  • preservation of the substratum of the suit – the plaintiff shows the defendant’s actions will render final judgment nugatory, such as demolishing structures, excavating minerals, permanently altering the property’s character;
  • commercial inability to pay – in commercial disputes, demonstrating for instance that the defendant is a shell company with no assets proves any future damages award would be unrealisable, making harm practically irreparable; and
  • loss of intangible interests – for ancestral land, matrimonial homes or primary residences, the constitutional right to housing and sentimental value establish that monetary damages are insufficient; consequently, a sale to third parties causes irreparable harm as the right to that specific property is lost forever.

A mechanic’s lien, commonly called a builder’s or contractor’s lien in Kenya, is a legal right of retention allowing a contractor to remain in possession of property they have improved until receiving full payment. A contractor can effectively encumber a property’s title or suspend dealings on it without an initial court order using administrative tools under the Land Registration Act.

Methods of Securing Interest

  • Caution – the most common method is lodging a caution at the Land Registry, which acts as a “statutory embargo” preventing the proprietor from selling, charging or transferring the land without the contractor’s knowledge or consent, though it does not confer ownership.
  • Possessory lien – under common law, a contractor in physical possession has the right to remain on the property and refuse to hand over completed works until final payment, without requiring a court order, though this is a “passive” right allowing only holding, not selling.

Foreclosure Procedure

  • File suit in the ELC court for breach of contract or recovery of sums due.
  • The contractor must prove they provided labour/materials and that the owner failed to pay, to obtain a final Judgment and Decree confirming the debt.
  • Once the court finds in favour of the contractor, a decree is issued, allowing for the execution of the judgment.
  • If the owner does not pay, the court can issue a warrant of attachment and sale. Proceeds from the sale are used to satisfy the contractor’s debt after higher-priority claims – ie, mortgages.

Key Regulations

  • The Capital Markets (Real Estate Investment Trusts) Regulations, 2013 govern REITs, dictating asset holdings (income-REITs must primarily invest in income-generating real estate) and mandating distribution of at least 80% of net income to unitholders, impacting bulk rental portfolio management
  • The Sectional Properties Act, 2020 is critical for bulk purchases of apartments or townhouses, conferring individual titles to units and governing common area management through owners’ corporations.
  • The Competition Act, 2010 subjects bulk purchases by PE firms to merger control if exceeding Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) thresholds, requiring prior approval with failure resulting in fines up to 10% of turnover.
  • Landlord and tenant legislation includes the Land Act and Land Registration Act, 2012 (title transfers, contracts); Constitution Article 43(1)(b) (right to adequate housing); and Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019 (development approvals).

Common litigation issues include:

  • stalled projects and off-plan sales disputes;
  • default on tenant purchase schemes;
  • breach of fiduciary duties by REIT managers; and
  • property title disputes.

Regulatory Bodies

Capital Markets Authority (CMA) regulates REITs; Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE) for listed REITs; County Governments regulate land use and building approvals; National Housing Corporation (NHC) implements housing policies; Kenya Mortgage Refinance Company (KMRC) supports housing finance; and the Environment and Land Court handles land-related disputes.

In Kenya, the public interest conversation has significantly reshaped the real estate landscape, moving beyond commercial profitability to prioritise transparency and socio-economic impact. High-profile fund collapses have driven a regulatory shift toward regulated REITs, where the presence of a trustee and a licensed manager is now a mandatory safeguard for investor protection. Simultaneously, the government’s Affordable Housing mandate has integrated public interest into the tax code, offering a reduced 15% corporate tax rate for developers who align with social goals.

For legal practitioners, this means that “public interest” is no longer a peripheral debate but a core consideration in litigation risk management, as courts increasingly balance a developer’s contractual rights against the constitutional right to housing.

Garane & Somane Advocates

Pitman House
1st Floor
Jakaya Kikwete Road
PO Box 20617-00100
Nairobi
Kenya

+254 20 646 6000

info@garaneadvocates.com www.garanesomaneadvocates.com
Author Business Card

Trends and Developments


Authors



Garane & Somane Advocates is a premier dispute resolution firm distinguished by its over 30 years of combined experience. Operating from strategic hubs in Nairobi, Mombasa and Malindi, the firm is a recognised authority in high-stakes constitutional litigation and complex banking and real estate disputes. The practice is particularly esteemed for representing financial institutions and developers in contentious matters involving the validity of charges, mortgage enforcement and property rights. The firm is a powerhouse in constitutional and administrative law, frequently handling petitions that protect property rights against regulatory overreach. In the banking sector, the team offers deep expertise in securities litigation, successfully defending the enforceability of bank charges and mortgages. Its real estate practice encompasses the full spectrum of mandates, from high-value joint venture disputes to defending development approvals in the Land and Environment Court, ensuring commercial certainty for clients.

Judicial Intervention as a Counter to Structural Failures in the Land Registration System – Deconstructing Dina Management

Background

What is probably the most important thing in land transactions is the registration of the certificate of title. Prominently, many jurisdictions have resolved that having the title document should symbolise an undisputed ownership of land, meaning that the title in itself, is indefeasible. In Kenya, the doctrine of indefeasibility of title has for a long time stood as the cornerstone of property law.

In a nation where land is not mere soil but the heartbeat of heritage, economy, and identity, a certificate of title has long transcended paper, serving as sacred proclamation of undisputed ownership and a gateway to wealth, dignity, and proprietary security. Yet this doctrine, often seen as impenetrable, has been tested and redefined by Kenya’s courts, revealing cracks through which justice seeps to address historical injustices and modern malfeasance.

To understand the evolving interpretations by the courts, we must first understand the context of the troubling history of land registration in Kenya, and the relevant land registration systems at play. Historically, Kenya’s land registration framework operated as a dual system, blending the Torrens and deeds-based systems.

All lands in Kenya, except government land and land situated along the coastal strip were registered under the Torrens system. The system dictates that the certificate of title is sacrosanct and not capable of being defeated by any other claim. Registration therefore represented indisputable evidence of ownership.

Conversely, interest in public land and land situated at the coastal strip was registered under the deed system. Here, registration did not guarantee the sanctity and indefeasibility of titles; rather, merely the existence of a transaction. This means that for a certificate of title to be upheld to be legitimate, there should be no irregularity in the transmission of the title, all the way from the original title, and the onus to investigate any irregularity was on the purchaser.

Generally, the Torrens system in Kenya found wide application because it applied to most private land. After the adoption of the Land Registration Act, 2012 (LRA), which repealed and consolidated all Acts providing for land registration, the Torrens system continued to find application in Kenyan courts, notwithstanding the persistent irregularities surrounding the acquisition of registered titles (with notable exceptions).

Given the design of the land regime, including numerous incidences of malfeasance, it is not difficult to see how courts could be unwitting partners in legitimising the impunity of an illegal acquisition of title. It therefore came as no surprise that a number of courts developed a history/jurisprudence of scepticism and hesitation in making blind declarations of a title’s indefeasibility. Against this backdrop, it was timely that the Supreme Court of Kenya (SCORK) was called upon to settle the issue once and for all in Dina Management Ltd v County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others (2023) eKLR.

Contextualising Dina Management

The Dina Management case presented SCORK with an opportunity to cause a major inflection point by pronouncing itself on the issue of sanctity of title. The case itself dealt with a number of issues, but three stand out as being acutely consequential in crystalising/settling the applicable title registration system in Kenya:

  • are innocent purchasers in Kenya entitled to protections under the Torrens system, thus they have no obligation to investigate defects in the title before purchasing land;
  • do previous illegalities in the transmission of land make a title defective; and
  • what does it mean to be a bona fide purchaser for value in land transactions.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court stated that, “To establish whether the appellant is a bona fide purchaser for value, we must first go to the root of the title, right from the first allotment...” It went on to say, “Indeed, the title or lease is an end product of a process. If the process that was followed prior to issuance of the title did not comply with the law, then such a title cannot be held as indefeasible”. Essentially, SCORK stated that a person’s title is indefeasible, just as long as it is acquired by a bona fide/innocent purchaser for value without notice; and notice was defined to mean that if a purchaser had, or ought to have had, notice of any irregularity at any point in the chain of transmission of a title, then that title is void.

The decision attracted criticism on several fronts. Most authors have faulted the court’s failure to make an inquiry into the applicable system of land registration – ie, whether the title converted from the Government’s Land Act (GLA) to the Registration of Titles Act (RTA) or LRA title, which are imbued with Torrens principles. The failure to investigate the conversion of title creates confusion with respect to the applicable land registration system in Kenya. This failure, in their minds, made it so that the court did not have the ability to determine the specific system of land registration at play.

Others contended that the onus to investigate the root of title was an obligation that is only doctrinally consistent with the deeds system, not indefeasibility under the Torrens regime; yet the judges used rationale and principles under the Torrens system to reach their conclusion.

Additionally, it was argued that the interpretation of the bona fide purchaser by SCORK was wrong, because it misdirected itself by focusing on the historical fraud committed by the initial allottee, while failing to properly interrogate or make findings on whether Dina Management, a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value, was itself implicated in any fraud. In doing so, the court collapsed the distinction between original illegality and subsequent innocent acquisition.

Finally, some commentaries maintained that a registered title under the RTA and LRA cannot be declared a nullity ab initio, even if the transfer history involved an irregularity or illegality, once a bona fide purchaser for value has been registered. The court was faulted for not adopting broad and liberal interpretations of Article 40 (6) of the Constitution to give life to the Torrens principle, which is embodied in the Act.

So then, the decision by SCORK has been just as instrumental as it has been divisive; perhaps in resetting the system of land registration, SCORK was also unsettling the protracted history of land injustice, and placing itself as a final safeguard in protecting and sanitising against the irregularities/illegalities/corrupt schemes in the land registry. Looked at through the contextual lenses of the history of land ownership in Kenya and how it may have affected constitutional and statutory changes in relation to land registration systems in Kenya, the decision offers a cleansing of sorts. It acts as a final safeguard against the myriad of historical and real-time deficiencies in land transmission.

It has done this by, in Dina Management and subsequent cases, innovatively curating a hybrid system of land registration that has tenets of both Torens and deed systems of registration.

Evolution of title registration systems in Kenya

Pre Land Registration Act, 2012

In Kenya, two system of land registration evolved over time: registration of deeds and registration of titles. The deed system, being the first to develop, operated by recording and registering the instruments affecting interest in land. The system is essentially contractual in nature, serving only to evidence the occurrence of a conveyancing transaction between the contracting parties.

Under the deed system, the state did not guarantee the sanctity and indefeasibility of titles, registration merely proof of the existence of a transaction and that a person named in the registered deed is the owner, rather than conferring conclusive indisputable ownership. The colonial administration introduced the deed system in Kenya under the Crown Ordinance Act, 1915, which empowered the commissioner protectorate to grant land to settlers.

The Act remained in force until independence and significantly influenced Kenya’s system of registration of deeds.

After Independence, the deed system remained operational through statutes such as GLA (which repealed the Crown Ordinance Act), Registration of Document Act (RDA) and Land Titles Act (LTA). However, the unchecked powers vested in the President to allocate public land proved an unmitigated legislative blunder. As flagged in the Ndungu report, these unfettered executive powers facilitated the irregular and illegal allocation of public land to private or corporate entities. 

On the other hand, the title system operated through statutes such as Registered Titles Act (RTA), Indian Transfer Property Act (ITPA) and Registered Land Act (RLA) (now repealed by the LRA), traces its genesis from the Torrens system of registration. The system rests on the Torren tenets such as mirror, curtain and insurance principles, marking a fundamental shift from the deed system by elevating the conclusiveness of land records maintained by state as the custodian of the land register. 

Under the Torrens system, the state guarantees the indefeasibility of titles, elevating registration as indisputable evidence of ownership such that a prospective purchaser need not look the beyond the register or inquire into matters concealed behind curtains. Put simply, the Torrens system obviates the onerous obligations imposed by the Supreme Court, in the Dina decision, to trace the root of the title and establish unbroken chain of ownership back to the original grant during the due diligence phase.

The existence of two competing registration systems created structural complexities exploited by the unscrupulous state officers, often exercising unfettered powers in collusion with fraudsters. This environment facilitated illegal and irregular allocation of public land, unlawful alteration of land documents, issuance of fake or unauthorised documents, issuance of two/more competing titles over a single parcel of land, or “loss” of vital land records, among other malfeasances, which have substantially contributed to the erosion of the sanctity of titles emanating from the registry.

Post Land Registration Act, 2012

The Constitution of Kenya, 2010, elevated proprietary rights in land as a constitutional and fundamental human right in the Bill of Rights. Article 40 guarantees the right to acquire and own property and shield such proprietary rights from arbitrary deprivation except in accordance with the law. The provision’s legislative history mirrors Kenyans’ determination to arrest the systemic land fraud often facilitated by unscrupulous officers at various land registries by manipulating land records, loss of vital documents and issuance of fake titles.

Concurrently, lawmakers were keen to continue the expression of this intent in The Land Registration Act, No 3 of 2012. The Act revised, consolidated and rationalised the registration of titles to protect their sanctity. The provision of the Act on the effects of registration is a normative derivative of Article 40(1) (6), which states that the right to property does not extend to any property that has been found to have been unlawfully acquired. It will soon be clear that SCORK was also extending the constitutional and legislative will of the people by affirming that proprietary rights are reserved only for lawfully acquired interests.

The burden on the purchaser: a shifting jurisprudence

Previously in this article, we mentioned that the Dina Management case affirmed indefeasibility of title as long as the land to which the title is attached was acquired by a bona fide/innocent purchaser for value without notice of any defect in the title. The court placed an obligation on the purchaser to investigate the title in a process of retrospective due diligence.

SCORK was similarly inclined in later cases, if not even more inclined, to raise the obligations of what it meant to be an innocent purchaser. In a subsequent judgment, the court held that, in investigating a defect to a title, a prospective purchaser must do a physical inspection of the piece of land that they intend to buy (in Torino Enterprises Limited v Attorney General (Petition 5 (E006) of 2022) [2023] KESC 79 (KLR)).

It went even further in Sehmi & another v Tarabana Company Limited & 5 others [2025] KESC 21 (KLR) to expand the meaning of an innocent purchaser to say that “the innocent purchaser doctrine only protects the purchaser against those basing their claims upon an equitable interest in the suit land”, not a legal interest, and that “legal rights are good against all the world; equitable rights are good against all persons except a bona fide purchaser of a legal estate for value without notice”.

So now, following this series of judgments, a purchaser only has good title if: they go to the root of the title; visit the site to investigate any physical defects; and their claim is against an equitable claim, not a legal one. In defence of the interpretation by SCORK of the application of Torens in Kenya, we argue as follows:

The question of a buyer’s innocence, in our view, is covered by the extent to which the courts can go to hold parties accountable for an illegal transfer based on the intentions of the lawmakers, and the lived realities of land transmissions in Kenya. On the intention of the lawmakers, SCORK based its finding on Article 40 (6) of the Constitution, which limits proprietary rights where the property has been unlawfully acquired, and Section 26 of the LRA, which is a normative derivative of the Article.

The court in the Sehmi case has emphasised the subtle changes that the LRA made to the indefeasibility of title doctrine, stating that registered titles shall be taken as prima facie proof of ownership, as opposed to absolute proof, in aligning with the Article 40(6) standard. It is curious that commentary would expect the court to prefer a broad interpretation of the Constitution in relation to Article 40(6), when a literal interpretation would be more fitting of the times.

We will finalise this part by mentioning that if the due diligence standard has left prospective land owners disenchanted, the most disenchanted are the range of buyers who seek to buy land from financial institutions exercising their statutory power of sale. In Fanikiwa Limited & 3 others v Sirikwa Squatters Group & 17 others [2023] KESC 105 (KLR), the court pointed out that financial institutions “cannot possibly be described as ‘innocent purchasers’. They are financial institutions...” Another case, Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees v Intercountries Exporters Limited & 5 others [2024] KECA 870 (KLR), invalidated the sale of a land that was being sold under statutory power of sale.

Two things are important to note:

  • a financial institution is not a bona fide purchaser, and there is no obligation, strictly speaking, on it to conduct due diligence before conducting its statutory power of sale; and
  • an innocent buyer who buys land at the fall of the hammer, seems to have no rights any different than any other purchaser, who would have had ample opportunity to investigate title.

The most significant unresolved tension in the emerging jurisprudence on land ownership and transmission is the question of whether the Dina Management standard ought to apply strictu sensu to purchasers deriving title through a chargee’s statutory power of sale. Certainly, placing the risk of purchasing a property on a purchaser might be the best option in a balancing act of interests, but is it the best option when balanced against the economic detriment of placing such a burden on a purchaser who buys a property subject to statutory sale, where they always had an expectation that a bank would sell them property free from defect. Perhaps the courts could conduct a similar balancing act as they did in Dina Management – ie, placing the fight against historical land injustice above the guarantees that would otherwise be present if they were to follow the Torrens system proper, and place the burden of defect of title in charged land, on banks. Certainly, the economic impetus to sell charged land should force banks to be more diligent in conducting due diligence.

We conclude by saying that any reasoning person would see the unfair burden placed on the prospective purchaser of a property by imposing on them a burden to investigate property that they are not a custodian of, and whose custodian does not have a particularly stellar record of record keeping. Yet despite this, we agree substantially with SCORK. Our conjecture is that it is important the court makes a decision that ensures a semblance of posterity in an area as consequential as land ownership.

Torrens and root of title

While the Torrens system aims to simplify transactions by avoiding historical scrutiny, recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has blurred this distinction by mandating root of title investigations when indefeasibility is challenged; for instance, in Dina Management, the court held that a registered title offers no protection if derived from an illegal root, such as improper public land allocation, requiring purchasers to prove the legality of the original acquisition beyond mere registry reliance. Similarly, in the Torino Enterprises Limited case, the Supreme Court reiterated that tainted roots invalidate subsequent titles, underscoring a judicial shift toward enhanced due diligence to combat land grabbing, even under the Torrens framework. This “root” investigation is certainly reminiscent of the deeds system.

The court has, in essence, blended/adopted a hybrid system of land registration, where both elements of Torrens and deeds registration are at play. It is interesting that SCORK simultaneously invokes the common law principles of nemo dat quod non habet, caveat emptor or buyer beware, and “bona fide purchaser” while at the same time affirming the Torrens framework, which has mirror, curtain and insurance principles as its hallmarks. Admittedly, in a strictly legal sense, the decision is unsettling as it permits the concurrent application of principles that are, at times, conceptually and even diametrically opposed. In practice, however, SCORK seems to have effectively sanitised land registry underhand dealings.

Conclusion

Collectively, the land transmission jurisprudence has moved toward eroding absolute indefeasibility under the Torrens system, mandating rigorous root of title scrutiny to curb land malfeasances, which imposes heightened due diligence on purchasers and limits protections for titles tainted by initial irregularities.

Kenyan land law appears headed toward greater transparency and equity, with legislative reforms like the National Land Commission (Amendment) Act, 2025, empowering investigations into colonial-era injustices up to 2010, potentially leading to widespread title revocations, resettlements and compensatory mechanisms to address systemic disparities while balancing investor confidence with public interest safeguards.

Garane & Somane Advocates

Pitman House
1st Floor
Jakaya Kikwete Road
PO Box 20617-00100
Nairobi
Kenya

+254 20 646 6000

info@garaneadvocates.com www.garanesomaneadvocates.com
Author Business Card

Law and Practice

Authors



Garane & Somane Advocates is a premier dispute resolution firm distinguished by its over 30 years of combined experience. Operating from strategic hubs in Nairobi, Mombasa and Malindi, the firm is a recognised authority in high-stakes constitutional litigation and complex banking and real estate disputes. The practice is particularly esteemed for representing financial institutions and developers in contentious matters involving the validity of charges, mortgage enforcement and property rights. The firm is a powerhouse in constitutional and administrative law, frequently handling petitions that protect property rights against regulatory overreach. In the banking sector, the team offers deep expertise in securities litigation, successfully defending the enforceability of bank charges and mortgages. Its real estate practice encompasses the full spectrum of mandates, from high-value joint venture disputes to defending development approvals in the Land and Environment Court, ensuring commercial certainty for clients.

Trends and Developments

Authors



Garane & Somane Advocates is a premier dispute resolution firm distinguished by its over 30 years of combined experience. Operating from strategic hubs in Nairobi, Mombasa and Malindi, the firm is a recognised authority in high-stakes constitutional litigation and complex banking and real estate disputes. The practice is particularly esteemed for representing financial institutions and developers in contentious matters involving the validity of charges, mortgage enforcement and property rights. The firm is a powerhouse in constitutional and administrative law, frequently handling petitions that protect property rights against regulatory overreach. In the banking sector, the team offers deep expertise in securities litigation, successfully defending the enforceability of bank charges and mortgages. Its real estate practice encompasses the full spectrum of mandates, from high-value joint venture disputes to defending development approvals in the Land and Environment Court, ensuring commercial certainty for clients.

Compare law and practice by selecting locations and topic(s)

{{searchBoxHeader}}

Select Topic(s)

loading ...
{{topic.title}}

Please select at least one chapter and one topic to use the compare functionality.