PART I: Summary of the case
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by a widow who was trying to reclaim land her late husband had sold to a third party. She argued that the sale was fraudulent and that she had a spousal interest in the property, as well as a beneficial interest arising from her financial contributions. She also alleged that the transfer was invalid for lack of spousal consent and approval from the Land Control Board.
The land had been mortgaged to a bank, and upon her husband's default, he sold the property privately in 1997 to prevent a public auction. The buyer took possession and began collecting rent. After her husband's death in 1998, the appellant discovered the sale and challenged its validity.
The Court held that although she was the deceased’s spouse, she had not shown that she had any registered, legal, or equitable right in the land that could override the title of the purchaser. The transaction took place before the enactment of the 2010 Constitution and the Matrimonial Property Act, which now provide stronger protections for matrimonial property.
While spousal rights can exist under Section 28 of the Land Registration Act, the Court emphasized that such rights must be clearly pleaded and supported by evidence—which was lacking in this case.
On the issue of Land Control Board consent, the Court noted that although consent is required for transactions involving agricultural land under Section 6 of the Land Control Act, both the seller and buyer were now deceased, and there was no evidence showing that consent was not obtained. The land records appeared regular, and the appellant failed to present sufficient grounds to invalidate the transaction.
Regarding the claim of trust, the Court reiterated that for a trust (whether express, implied, or constructive) to be upheld, it must be clearly pleaded and proven. The appellant only cited her marital status and financial input, which the Court found inadequate to establish a trust. There was no evidence of the husband intending to hold the land in trust for her, nor any customary or family arrangements to support such a claim under Section 28(b) of the Land Registration Act.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the transaction between the deceased and the buyer was valid and that the purchaser was an innocent buyer for value without notice of any competing claims.
PART II: Legal Case Brief
Parties:
- Appellant: Widow of the late Raphael Okoth Omollo
- Respondents: Legal representatives of the deceased purchaser
Background:
- The appellant’s husband had charged land to a bank.
- Upon default, he sold the land privately in 1997 to avoid public auction.
- The purchaser took possession and began collecting rent.
- After the husband's death in 1998, the appellant discovered the transfer and challenged its validity.
Issues:
1. Whether the appellant had a spousal or beneficial interest in the land.
2. Whether the sale was invalid due to lack of spousal consent.
3. Whether the absence of Land Control Board (LCB) consent invalidated the transaction.
4. Whether the deceased held the land in trust for the appellant.
Holding:
The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the sale lawful and the purchaser a bona fide buyer for value without notice.
Court’s Reasoning:
1. Spousal Interest / Consent:
- Appellant was indeed the deceased’s wife.
- However, she failed to prove a registered or legally recognized interest in the property.
- The sale occurred before the enactment of the 2010 Constitution and Matrimonial Property Act.
- Spousal rights under Section 28 of the Land Registration Act must be pleaded and proven, which was not done.
2. Beneficial Interest / Contribution:
- The appellant claimed she contributed financially to preserve the land.
- The Court found no evidence of a beneficial interest or overriding equitable right.
3. Land Control Board Consent:
- LCB consent is mandatory for agricultural land under Section 6 of the Land Control Act.
- Both transacting parties were deceased.
- No conclusive evidence was provided to show consent was not obtained.
- The land register showed no irregularity.
4. Trust:
- The claim that the husband held the land in trust failed.
- Trust must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence.
- Appellant’s reference to marriage and financial contribution was insufficient.
- No customary or family arrangement was established under Section 28(b) of the Land Registration Act.
Disposition:
- Appeal dismissed.
- Sale upheld as lawful.
- Purchaser affirmed as an innocent third party without notice of adverse claims.