What Kenyan courts actually require before family land becomes your land

 By Valarie ibalai

There is a version of this story you have probably heard at every family gathering. A father moves land into an older sibling's name maybe because the younger one is still a minor, maybe just to keep things simple with the understanding that it will eventually pass down. Everyone grows up believing it is settled.

Then the sibling holding the title refuses to transfer it or passes away and their spouse wants the rest of the family off the land.

The advice that circulates at this point is always some version of the same thing: get a lawyer and get them to argue customary trust. It does not work like that, what most people call “customary trust” in conversation is actually two different legal claims wearing the same name and Kenyan courts do not treat them the same way.

Two different trusts, often confused

Classic customary trust is about ancestral land. A clan or family held land communally under African customary law before it was ever registered to an individual; during adjudication, one member often the eldest son was registered to hold it on behalf of everyone else (Constitution of Kenya, 2010, arts. 40, 60– 68; Community Land Act, No. 27 of 2016). That is the doctrine the Supreme Court protected in Kiebia v M’Lintari & another [2018] KESC 22 (KLR). “A father transfers land to an older sibling to hold for a younger one until they turn 18” is a different animal a specific, deliberate arrangement between two living people, closer to what courts analyse as an express or resulting trust. The claimant still has to prove intention and arrangement, but the evidence looks different: not clan history, but the actual circumstances of the transfer.

Courts have enforced exactly this kind of arrangement when it was proven in Ngugi & another v Ngugi [2024] KEELC 4698 (KLR), land had been registered in a relative's name to hold on trust for children who were minors at the time. Once they reached majority, the court dissolved the trust and ordered the land registered in their own names because the arrangement was clearly documented and uncontroverted, not because the claimants were related to the registered owner.

The test courts actually apply

Whichever version of the claim you are running; Kenyan courts have converged on a consistent checklist.

A claimant generally has to show:

• The land was family, clan, or community land before registration or, for an express arrangement, that a specific agreement was made at a specific time
• There was a recognized arrangement that one person would hold the land on behalf of another
• The registered holder was the person actually designated to hold it not someone who acquired it in their own right
• The claimant's relationship to the land reflects genuine dependency or contribution not just kinship on its own

Notice what is missing: being related to the registered owner, family ties alone do not get you there. Neither does a verbal promise nobody wrote down, nor a shared belief that “this is how it was always going to work out.”

Where these claims go wrong

The Court of Appeal's approach in Mburu v Wainaina [2025] KECA 181 (KLR) shows how this plays out. A claimant argued that land registered in a relative's name was held on customary trust for him. The court held that even if he had lived on part of the land, occupation alone did not prove a trust existed before registration and noted that if his real complaint was long possession, the correct route was adverse possession, not customary trust. Mixing up the two claims can sink an otherwise arguable case.

This is the pattern behind a wave of recent land rulings: courts upholding a registered owner's title precisely because the challenger offered family narrative or assumption nothing that predated the arrangement itself. A relative's name on the register is strong, protected evidence.

Displacing it takes more than a shared family story.

The fix nobody uses: Section 66

Here is what almost never comes up until it is too late: the Land Registration Act already gives families a way to avoid this fight entirely. Section 66 allows a person acquiring land in a fiduciary capacity to be registered with the words “as trustee” added to the title and allows the underlying trust instrument to be formally deposited with the Registrar (Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012, s. 66).

If the father in our opening scenario had done this when the land was first transferred, there would be no dispute to have. The title itself would show that the older sibling held it in trust, for whom and on what terms. Almost nobody uses this provision usually because nobody expects the arrangement to be contested until it already is.

What actually counts as evidence

• Adjudication or consolidation records showing who the land was meant to benefit
• A trust instrument deposited with the Registrar, or a title registered “as trustee” under section 66
• Minutes, correspondence, or chief's records documenting the arrangement
• Consistent, long-term occupation that matches the claimed arrangement, not occupation alone
• Witnesses who can speak to the arrangement at the time it was made

If you’re already in one of these arrangements

• Put the arrangement in writing and have both parties sign it a dated document beats any number of witnesses
• Where possible, register the trust under section 66, or deposit a trust instrument with the Registrar
• Keep evidence of the original transaction who paid, what was agreed, why the title ended up in one name
• If the arrangement was for a minor, treat the date they reach majority as the natural point to formalize the transfer

Why courts have gotten stricter

This is not happening in a vacuum. Kenya's registries have spent recent years digitizing records through Ardhisasa (Ardhisasa, National Land Information Management System, Ministry of Lands) and cleaning up decades of overlapping, poorly documented land dealings. Courts have watched customary trust is pleaded as a catch-all argument in disputes with little connection to genuine family arrangements. The response has been a tighter evidentiary bar, not a rejection of the doctrine judges still accept these arrangements exist; they are just no longer willing to presume one because the parties share a surname. A pleading that leads with “we are family” invites the scrutiny that sinks these cases; one that leads with dates, documents and a specific arrangement is the one that survives cross-examination.

Common mistakes claimants make

• Treating occupation as self-proving living on land for years shows possession, not necessarily a trust, and the two require different pleadings
• Filing under the wrong cause of action, then trying to argue trust and adverse possession interchangeably once evidence is already before the court
• Waiting until a dispute is active to gather evidence, by which point witnesses have died, moved, or forgotten dates and details
• Assuming a family meeting or verbal agreement carries the same weight as a written or registered arrangement, when courts give it far less

These claims are also vulnerable to delay. The longer a family waits to formalise or assert an arrangement after learning it's disputed, the harder it becomes to convince a court the arrangement was genuine rather than invented once money or opportunity entered the picture and a suit to recover land generally cannot be brought more than twelve years after the right to bring it arose (Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22, s.7). If your family's land situation rests on an informal understanding, the best time to document it was years ago. The second-best time is now.

If your claim to family land rests on customary or resulting trust, the doctrine can genuinely protect you courts have upheld it, dissolved trusts and ordered transfers where the arrangement was real and provable. However, it rewards paperwork and documented intention, not the strength of the family story. “We're family” is where the conversation starts. It has never been where a trust case is won.

 

Ibalai Legal is a Nairobi-based online legal practice on a mission to make law accessible to every Kenyan. Through Be In The Know With Ibalai Legal, we break down complex legal concepts into clear, practical content for individuals, startups and SMEs. 

 

Catch you in the next blog!

 

Disclaimer- The information provided is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as professional advice. Please consult a qualified professional for specific guidance.