Wambura Kanga v. Khuria Nyakura, (PC) Civ. App. 227-D-67, 5/8/69, Biron J.

Wambura Kanga v. Khuria Nyakura, (PC) Civ. App. 227-D-67, 5/8/69, Biron J.

The plaintiff-appellant, after consulting the ten-house cell leader and the Village Development Committee, purchased a parcel of land from a third party. However at some stage, the Village Development Committee allocated part of this parcel of land to the respondent, who went into occupation thereof. In a suit in the Primary Court, the court found in the appellant’s favour, on the grounds that he had paid valuable consideration for the land, and that the respondent had some other land as well. On appeal by the respondent to the District Court, it was held that according to local custom, land could not just be disposed of by one occupant to another, but had to be allocated by the Village Development Committee, and that therefore the respondent was entitled to retain the portion allocated to him. The order of the Primary Court was accordingly reversed, and the decision of, and the allocation by, the Village Development Committee, restored. On appeal from this order.

            Held: “In view of the fact that the Primary Court had taken into consideration that the land had been allocated between the contesting parties by the Village Development Committee, yet, apparently, did not feel itself bound by such allocation, I enquired from the District court Magistrate the authority for his statement that land in the area could not be transferred by individual to individual, but must be allocated by the Village Development  Committee, and he has written to this Court categorically stating that it is the local custom in the area that land must be, and can only be, allocated by the Village Development Committee. I see no reason to doubt the district Court Magistrate’s statement of the law which he has confirmed, that land in the area cannot be alienated by, or transferred between, individuals, but must be allocated by the Village Development Committee, which I consider, from a reasonable and practical point of view to be a commendable and salutary one. In the circumstances, I see no reason for interfering with the District Court’s finding and order.” Appeal dismissed.