Widow cries for justice as 18-year-old land case drags on

There seems to be no end in sight to an 18-year-old legal dispute over land.

Beatrice Muchere Mugo, a widow, had been fighting for the piece of land with her brother-in-law, James Muriithi, who is now dead.

Last week, the 65-year-old Ms Mugo told Senior Resident Magistrate Onesmus Towett that James Muriithi's widow, Jennifer Wangechi and her family had refused to produce letters of administration of Mr Muriithi's estate to frustrate her efforts to pursue an appeal.

By law, Ms Muchere cannot be sued as the owner of the disputed land because she has no letters of administration and is thus not recognised as the legal owner.

Muchere told the court that her case at the Court of Appeal had stalled since there was no legal administrator of the dispute land and wanted the court to compel Wangechi to take up ownership of the land so that she can substitute her husband, who died on August 30, 2011, in the suit.

The mother of five moved to court in 1998 following the death of her husband, protesting that Muriithi had issued letters of administration for the estate of Nguchu Guchura, who died in 1968.

Muriithi subdivided the 6.9-acre land into three portions of 2.3 acres each, one of which he gave to Muchere. But Muchere opposed the decision, saying Muriithi had no stake in the land which she claimed to have bought with her husband and his father.

Muchere further submitted before the court that having contributed towards the buying of the plot, she was entitled to a bigger share.

In her affidavit, Muchere said the land, which was registered in her father-in-law's name, was purchased in 1971.

But Muriithi said the land was purchased before 1966, and before Muchere was married to his step-brother, Charles Guchura.

In 2001, the court ruled it could not determine the matter because Muchere did not provide a sale agreement to prove she was involved in buying the land.

Muchere could neither state the price nor when it was bought nor how much money she contributed.

Her case was thus dismissed on grounds that she had failed to prove her case on a balance of probability.

She then moved to the Court of Appeal. The matter will come up for a ruling on August 31.