Key Differences between Certificate of Lease and Title Deed in Land ownership

Feature	Certificate of Lease	Title Deed (Certificate of Title)
Tenure Type	Leasehold	Freehold
Ownership Duration	Fixed period (e.g., 99 or 33 years)	Indefinite (perpetual ownership)
Land Ownership	Government (or other entity) owns the land; lessee holds rights for a term	Individual owns the land outright
Document Title	"Certificate of Lease"	"Certificate of Title" (commonly referred to as a "Title Deed")
Common in	Urban areas or land under government authority	Rural areas or land owned by individuals/clans
Renewal?	Yes, lease must be renewed after expiry	Not applicable – ownership is permanent

 

Legal Basis

1. Certificate of Lease
• Issued under the Registered Land Act (now repealed) or Land Registration Act (2012) for leasehold properties.
• The government (or other lessor) retains ultimate ownership.
• Common for land in urban areas where land is leased from county/national government or institutional owners.
2. Title Deed (Certificate of Title)
• Issued under the Land Registration Act or prior statutes for freehold properties.
• The holder has absolute ownership, subject to the law (e.g., planning regulations, public interest).
• More common in rural areas, family-owned land, or land acquired privately with no time limit.

 

Why Some Properties Have One or the Other

1. Nature of the Land Grant

• If the land was alienated (granted) by the government as a lease, the buyer gets a Certificate of Lease.
• If it was alienated as freehold, the owner gets a Title Deed.

2. Urban vs Rural Areas

• Most urban land is under leasehold because it is public land originally allocated by the government.
• Most rural land is freehold, especially ancestral or community land subdivided and registered.

3. Planned Developments

• Apartments/flats or developments on large parcels may be leasehold even if the mother parcel is freehold (e.g., sectional properties).

 

Can a Leasehold Be Converted to Freehold?

Yes, in some cases. A leaseholder can apply to convert to freehold tenure, especially if:

• The land is not reserved for public use.
• The government allows it under Land Act provisions.
• The lease has expired or is about to expire.

However, not all leasehold land is eligible for conversion.

 

Conclusion

• Title Deed = Freehold = Permanent ownership
• Certificate of Lease = Leasehold = Time-limited ownership

The type of document you get depends on how the land was originally classified, who owns the reversionary interest (the ultimate landowner), and where the land is located.

 

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

On employee protections under Kenyan employment law: The Case of Maxton Duke Kibira v Twiga Foods Limited

Maxton Duke Kibira v Twiga Foods Limited Cause No.: 463 of 2019 [2025] KEELRC 2751 (KLR)

Facts of the Case:

• The Claimant, Maxton Duke Kibira, was employed by the Respondent, Twiga Foods Limited, from either February 2015 (as per the Claimant) or May 2016 (as per the Respondent), until his termination on 13 December 2018.
• The Respondent cited poor performance as the reason for termination, alleging:
• Revenue target shortfall (85% vs target of 92%)
• Excessive returns (23% vs acceptable 5%)
• Unbanked revenue exceeding KShs 30,000
• The Claimant disputed the termination, arguing it was unfair and unlawful, and further claimed the employer made arbitrary salary deductions totaling KShs 426,000.
• He sought compensation for unfair dismissal, refund of unlawful deductions, and other remedies.

 

Issues for Determination:

1. Whether the Claimant’s termination was lawful and fair.
2. Whether the Claimant was entitled to compensation and reimbursement of salary deductions.

Holding:

1. The termination was both substantively and procedurally unfair.
2. The Claimant was entitled to compensation and refund of the deducted salary.

 

Court’s Reasoning:

• The Respondent failed to provide:
• A clear job description or performance targets
• Evidence of a performance improvement plan or evaluations
• Notice or hearing as required under Section 41 of the Employment Act
• The alleged salary deductions were unsubstantiated, lacked documentation, and were done without the Claimant’s consent, rendering them unlawful.
• The employer did not meet the legal burden under Sections 43 and 45 to justify the dismissal.

 

Court's Holding:

The Court awarded the Claimant:

• KShs 600,000 – compensation for unfair termination (equivalent to 6 months’ salary)
• KShs 426,000 – refund of unlawful salary deductions
• Interest at court rates from date of judgment until payment in full
• Costs of the suit
• Claims for notice pay and overtime were dismissed for lack of proof

 

Legal Principles Applied:

• Section 41, 43 & 45 – Employment Act (Kenya): Procedural and substantive fairness in termination
• Burden of proof lies on the employer to justify reasons for termination and deductions
• Salary deductions must be lawful, consensual, and properly documented

 

Significance:

• The case reinforces employee protections under Kenyan employment law, especially in cases of alleged poor performance.
• Highlights the necessity for employers to maintain proper documentation, provide fair process, and refrain from unilateral salary deductions.
• Serves as a precedent on what constitutes unfair termination and unlawful deductions.

A Review of Limited Grants under the Kenyan Law

Introduction

Under the Law of Succession Act (Cap 160) of Kenya, only individuals legally authorized through letters of administration or probate are permitted to manage or distribute a deceased person’s estate. Engaging in any action concerning the estate — even for the benefit of the deceased’s dependants — without official court-sanctioned authority amounts to intermeddling, which is prohibited.

However, there are situations where urgent intervention is necessary — for example, when dependants require immediate financial support, a legal matter involving the deceased is pending, or the estate needs urgent safeguarding. In such cases, an individual may apply to the court for a limited grant, allowing them to carry out specific tasks without waiting for full administration to be completed.

In essence, a "grant" is legal confirmation from the court, authorizing a person to act in relation to a deceased’s estate. Below is an overview of the various types of limited grants, as outlined in the Law of Succession Act, with relevant examples from Kenyan case law.

Types of Limited Grants in Kenya

1. Grants Limited as to Purpose

These grants provide narrow authority, allowing a person to carry out specific functions rather than managing the entire estate.

a) Grant Ad Colligenda Bona (To Collect and Preserve Property)

This type of grant is used to collect and protect the estate where there is risk of loss or waste, especially before full probate or letters of administration are issued. It does not permit the grantee to sell or invest estate assets.

In Re Estate of Mary Syokwia Kyalili (eKLR) and Mary Waithera v Ann Ndegwa & Another (eKLR), the court recognized the urgency of issuing such a grant in situations like payment of school fees for minor children — a matter of constitutional importance under Article 53(1)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, which guarantees a child’s right to education.

In Re Estate of Daniel A. Korir Kipkurui (Deceased), a grant ad colligenda bona was issued to allow the widow to withdraw funds for school fees and child upkeep, reinforcing that children’s rights may justify limited administration in urgent cases.

Similarly, in Re Estate of Mary Wanja Wairimu (Deceased), the court ordered the opening of a joint bank account to preserve and manage rent from the deceased’s property, ensuring income wasn’t lost or misused during the succession process.

b) Grant Ad Litem (For Legal Proceedings)

This grant allows someone to represent the estate in a civil suit — either to pursue a claim or defend one. It is not meant for full estate administration or distribution.

In Re Estate of Jennifer Kusuro Musiwa (Deceased) and Re Estate of Helena Wangechi Njoroge (Deceased), the courts clarified that an ad litem grant is strictly for litigation purposes and not for distributing assets. This is especially useful when the deceased had a pending court case or if the estate must initiate a legal claim.

2. Grants Limited as to Property

a) Administration Pendente Lite

This type of grant is issued while a succession dispute is ongoing. It ensures that the estate is not left unmanaged or wasted during litigation. The administrator has no power to distribute assets but acts under court supervision.

This is particularly common in Kenyan family disputes where multiple parties lay claim to the estate or challenge the validity of a will. It allows for neutral management of the estate until the court resolves the dispute.

b) Grant De Bonis Non (For Unadministered Property)

If an administrator or executor dies or becomes unable to complete the administration of the estate, a new administrator can be appointed to finalize the process. This grant is issued to deal with remaining assets.

In Faith Wanjiku Maganjo v Rebean Muriithi Maganjo (eKLR), the court explained that the new administrator — called the "administrator de bonis non" — is responsible for completing the distribution of any leftover estate.

3. Grants Limited as to Time

These grants apply in situations involving lost, withheld, or unproduced wills:

• Probate of a copy or draft of a lost will may be granted if the original was lost or destroyed unintentionally.
• Probate of a copy where original exists abroad can be granted if the person holding the original (outside Kenya) refuses to hand it over and the estate’s needs require immediate action.
• Administration until will is produced applies when it is believed a will exists but it hasn’t yet been found. The court may allow temporary administration until the document is available.

These grants provide temporary authority, ensuring the estate isn’t neglected due to documentation delays.

Conclusion

In Kenya, navigating succession matters can be complex and time-consuming, especially when probate or letters of administration are delayed. Limited grants provide an essential legal tool to protect and manage the estate during this transitional period.

Whether it’s paying school fees, collecting rent, or handling legal claims, limited grants enable families to meet urgent needs while safeguarding the estate from intermeddlers — individuals who try to benefit unlawfully.

To avoid such risks and ensure your wishes are honoured:

• Engage a lawyer to safely keep your will.
• Inform your family and executor where your will is kept.
• Ensure your legal team can contact your executors promptly upon your passing.

Ultimately, proper estate planning and timely legal intervention using tools such as limited grants can prevent financial distress and protect the dignity of your legacy in line with Kenyan law and cultural priorities.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

 

On termination; Restructuring must be supported by tangible, documentary evidence - The Case of Harun v Watu Credit Limited [2025] KEELRC 2542 (KLR)

The Case of Harun v Watu Credit Limited [2025] KEELRC 2542 (KLR)

A. Contextualized Legal Summary:

In the recent decision of Harun v Watu Credit Limited [2025] KEELRC 2542 (KLR), the Employment and Labour Relations Court clarified the evidentiary threshold required when an employer relies on organizational restructuring as the basis for a redundancy.

The court emphasized that claims of restructuring must be substantiated with concrete evidence, not mere assertions or statements from management. In this case, the Respondent had terminated the Claimant’s employment citing redundancy, allegedly resulting from organizational restructuring. The Claimant had been informed that the business could no longer sustain his role. However, the court held that the Respondent had failed to provide sufficient proof to support this claim.

Specifically, the court found that the Respondent ought to have presented:

1.        Formal documentation evidencing that the Board of Management had passed a resolution to restructure the organization, and that such restructuring led directly to the elimination of the Claimant’s position; and

2.        An updated organizational structure (organogram) showing the changes made as part of the restructuring, and confirming that the Claimant’s position had indeed been rendered redundant.

In the absence of this evidence, the court held that the alleged restructure was unsubstantiated and concluded that the Respondent had failed to demonstrate a valid reason for the termination.

 

B. Detailed Legal Summary: 

1. Procedural Background:

The Claimant, Harun, instituted proceedings against the Respondent, Watu Credit Limited, contesting the termination of his employment on account of redundancy. He challenged both the substantive justification and the procedural fairness of the redundancy process.

2. Issues for Determination:

The key issues before the court were:

1.        Whether the Respondent's decision to terminate the Claimant’s employment on grounds of redundancy was genuine and justified.

2.        Whether the Respondent adhered to the procedural requirements under Kenyan employment law for declaring a position redundant.

3. Respondent’s Position:

The Respondent claimed that the termination arose from an organizational restructuring, necessitated by business needs. It alleged that the Claimant’s position was no longer sustainable and was abolished as part of this restructuring exercise.

4. Court’s Analysis and Findings:

a) Requirement for Substantive Justification:

The court emphasized that a redundancy must be based on real, verifiable reasons, and not on unsubstantiated assertions. A claim of restructuring, in particular, must be accompanied by:

• Formal board resolutions authorizing the restructuring;
• Evidence of actual changes within the organization, such as updated structures or job roles;
• Proof that the specific role affected (in this case, the Claimant’s position) was indeed rendered obsolete.

The court found that the Respondent failed to provide such evidence. No documentation was produced to demonstrate that:

• The Board had formally resolved to restructure;
• The Claimant’s position was genuinely abolished as a result of the restructure; or
• A new organizational structure had been implemented.

b) Absence of Organogram or Structural Evidence:

The court noted that an updated organogram showing how the company’s structure had changed was critical to establish that the Claimant’s position no longer existed. The Respondent failed to produce this, thereby undermining its claim of a genuine redundancy.

c) Mere Assertions Not Sufficient:

The court stressed that verbal or written statements by management, without accompanying documentary proof, are insufficient to justify redundancy. In this case, the explanations given to the Claimant were deemed to be mere assertions, lacking evidential backing.

5. Holding:

The court held that the Respondent did not prove that a genuine redundancy existed. The alleged restructuring was not substantiated, and the redundancy process was therefore both procedurally and substantively flawed.

6. Decision:

The termination of the Claimant’s employment was found to be unlawful and unfair. The court ruled in favor of the Claimant. (Remedies granted—such as compensation, reinstatement, or damages—were not provided in the summary you gave; please provide those details if you'd like them included.)

7. Legal Significance:

This case reaffirms the principle that for a redundancy to be lawful in Kenya:

• There must be genuine and demonstrable reasons;
• Employers must adhere to the procedural safeguards under the Employment Act;
• Restructuring must be supported by tangible, documentary evidence, including board resolutions and revised organizational charts.

The judgment underscores the court's increasing insistence on transparency and accountability in redundancy processes and sets a precedent for holding employers to higher standards of proof when alleging restructuring.

 

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.