Protracted court battle still raging, 58 years on

By MURIMI MWANGI

A protracted land dispute spanning 58 years, 40 of which have been spent in court, may extend after one of the litigants filed a notice to appeal a recent ruling.

The dispute dates back to 1956, when the contentious five acres of ancestral land was registered in the name of one of the litigants.

For about 18 years, a council of elders made futile efforts to reconcile the late Muthanji Wangige (in whose name the land was registered) and his brothers, Mbugua Wangige and the late Nyoro Wangige.

According to court documents, the brothers slaughtered and ate a goat together with the elders to signify reconciliation but the dispute was later reignited, resulting in the current suit.

One of the brothers, Nyoro, died before the conflict was amicably resolved, prompting his son David Njuguna to take over the fight for his share of ancestral land.

On September 18, 1974, Mbugua and Njuguna (his nephews) moved to court and sued Muthanji, claiming he had dispossessed them of their ancestral land.

On July 21, 1981, High Court judge Mathew Muli, with the consent of the parties, directed the matter for arbitration to a tribunal of village elders.

In their verdict, the elders directed that Mbugua and Muthanji would receive two acres, while Njuguna was to be allotted one acre of the land.

The resolution was adopted by the court in December 1981.

But by the time of Muthanji’s death on December 16, 2009, the demarcation and issuance of title deeds was yet to be done.

Then Njuguna died on October 5 1998, before receiving his share. The two deaths ignited a fresh row over the land, as Njuguna’s wife made an application to be enjoined in the case.

In her application, Mrs Njuguna also wanted the court to enjoin the late Muthanji’s son, Joseph Gachuhi, in his late father’s capacity as respondent in the suit.

On December 16 last year, visiting High Court judge, Justice Joseph Sergon, allowed the application. The respondent has since filed a notice of appeal to the ruling, an indicator that the court battle is far from over.