Kisumu Court Explains Limits of Compensation for Victims of Land Fraud

The Environment and Land Court in Kisumu has awarded a buyer Ksh784,000 after a fraudulent land transaction left her unable to acquire the property she had agreed to purchase.

The case involved a woman who agreed to buy two parcels of land in Manyatta, Kisumu County, for Ksh600,000. She paid a deposit of Ksh260,000 and later paid for succession proceedings to help the seller obtain authority over the property.

She discovered that the land had already been registered in another person’s name. She then financed a civil case challenging the registration. The seller later settled the matter privately with the registered owner, prompting the buyer to report him to the police.

The seller was subsequently convicted of obtaining money by false pretences and sentenced to three years in prison. The buyer later asked the court either to order the transfer of the land to her or to award Ksh780,000 in compensation. The amount included her deposit and various expenses she had incurred in connection with the dispute.

The trial court declined to transfer the property because the seller did not have a valid title that he could pass to her. It instead awarded her Ksh614,000, covering the deposit and legal fees associated with the criminal proceedings. The buyer appealed, seeking further compensation and the cancellation of the registered owner’s title.

The appellate court declined to cancel the title, finding that there was insufficient evidence that the registered owner had been involved in fraud. However, it found that some of the buyer’s expenses were directly connected to the fraudulent transaction.

The court therefore awarded her an additional Ksh170,000 for legal fees incurred during the succession proceedings and costs related to the civil case. This brought her total compensation to Ksh784,000.

The additional Ksh170,000 will attract interest at 14 per cent from March 2024.

The ruling also set out limits on the expenses a buyer can recover after a fraudulent property transaction. The court found that expenses must be directly connected to the transaction, properly supported by evidence and necessary for pursuing the resulting legal proceedings.

Claims relating to upkeep, school fees, dowry and unsupported tracking expenses were rejected because they were either too remote from the transaction or were not adequately proved.