East Africa Property and Land Disputes Legal Advice

A property document is only one part of a land transaction. Across East Africa, a safer result depends on checking the register, the ground, the people in possession and the procedure that the law requires.

Contents

Why a property dispute is rarely only about a title

The constitutional starting point differs by country

Due diligence means checking the land and the people

Boundaries are proved by records, measurements and conduct

Leases need an exit plan, not only a rent figure

Eviction law protects process as well as property

How to read a majority, dissent and appeal in practice

The practical rule for an ordinary property owner

Why a property dispute is rarely only about a title

Buying a house, taking a commercial lease or defending a boundary can look like a private disagreement between two people. The legal question is usually wider. A title may have been issued over land already occupied by another family. A survey plan may describe a boundary differently from the fence on the ground. A tenant may have breached a lease, but the landlord may still have to give a prescribed notice and obtain an order before taking possession. A public authority may have power to acquire land, but not to remove people without following the constitutional and statutory safeguards.

The East African Community now has eight Partner States: Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. The EAC Treaty promotes integration, but it does not create one regional land register or one uniform conveyancing law. The law governing ownership, registration, leases, eviction and court procedure remains principally national. That is why a lawyer handling a cross-border investment must identify the country in which the land is situated before relying on a familiar document or case from another state.

The constitutional starting point differs by country

Kenya gives the clearest constitutional map. Articles 40 and 60 to 68 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 protect property, classify land as public, community or private, and require land to be administered through principles such as security of land rights, equitable access and transparent administration. The Land Registration Act 2012 and the Land Act 2012 then supply the machinery for registration, dealings, leases, compulsory acquisition and remedies. The Environment and Land Court Act places land and environment disputes in a specialist superior court.

Uganda begins with Article 26 of the Constitution, which protects property, and Article 237, which recognises customary, freehold, mailo and leasehold tenure. The Land Act, Cap 227, gives those forms practical content and recognises protections for lawful and bona fide occupants. The Registration of Titles Act remains important for registered interests, while the Landlord and Tenant Act 2022 governs many residential and commercial tenancy relationships. The Ugandan lawyer therefore asks two questions at once: who is on the register, and what protected interest may exist outside the register?

Tanzania takes a different route. Article 24 of the Constitution protects property, while the Land Act 1999 and Village Land Act 1999 treat land as public land held by the President as trustee for citizens and organise rights of occupancy, village land and general land. The Land Disputes Courts Act 2002 creates a specialist dispute-settlement path. A Tanzanian title or certificate of right of occupancy must therefore be read with the category of land, the issuing authority and the applicable land-use decision, not as if it were a private freehold title in a common-law registry.

Rwanda’s Constitution, Article 34, protects private property, but land ownership and related rights are granted by the State under the land law. Law No. 27/2021 governing land in Rwanda, together with the law on expropriation in the public interest and land-use planning instruments, makes registration, permitted use and public-interest procedures central to property advice. A buyer may have a registered right and still face problems if the proposed development conflicts with the approved land use or if the transaction has ignored a public-interest process.

In Burundi, Article 36 of the Constitution protects property and the Land Code of 2011 provides the principal framework for land rights, registration and land administration. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Article 34 of the Constitution protects property, while the Land Law of 20 July 1973, as amended, places land within the domain of the State and works through concessions and recognised rights of use. South Sudan’s Transitional Constitution and Land Act 2009 recognise public, community and private land and protect customary interests, with the Land Policy 2013 providing an important policy context. Somalia’s Provisional Constitution protects ownership, use and transfer of property in Article 26 and gives land a separate constitutional framework in Article 43; its National Land Policy and federal arrangements remain important in understanding registration and dispute resolution.

The comparison is practical. Kenya and Uganda make registration and competing interests especially visible. Tanzania and the DRC require close attention to public trusteeship or concession structures. Rwanda places state-granted rights, registration and land use at the centre. Burundi, South Sudan and Somalia require particular care with customary, community and administrative records, because a private contract may not answer the larger question of who had authority to grant the land.

Due diligence means checking the land and the people

A lawyer’s first task is not to make a sale sound safe. It is to find out what could make it unsafe. A proper search should identify the registered proprietor, the nature and duration of the interest, mortgages, caveats, restrictions, previous transfers, unpaid charges, court orders and pending applications. It should compare the registry plan with the survey information and the physical occupation. The lawyer should also ask who lives, farms, trades or stores goods on the land, and whether a spouse, family, customary owner, lawful occupant, co-owner or tenant has an interest that is not obvious from the title.

The Kenyan Court of Appeal’s decision in Arthi Highway Developers Limited v West End Butchery Limited and Others [2015] eKLR is a warning against treating registration as a cure for fraud. The court examined a transaction in which the title history and the circumstances of the transfers could not be defended as an innocent purchase. The practical lesson is that a purchaser cannot simply produce a title and ask the court to stop looking. The advocate who represented a claimant successfully connected the irregular documents, the transaction history and the conduct surrounding the registration. A lawyer acting for a purchaser who relies only on a clean-looking copy of the register, without checking the root of title and the circumstances of possession, may leave the client unable to claim the protection of a bona fide purchaser.

The later Kenyan Supreme Court decision in Dina Management Limited v County Government of Mombasa and Others [2023] KESC 30 made the same point in a different setting. A registered title is powerful evidence, but it does not immunise an unlawful acquisition from constitutional scrutiny. The case makes due diligence especially important when land has a public history, a coastal or planning dimension, or a contested allocation. A lawyer should obtain the allocation or grant documents, confirm the issuing authority, inspect planning and public-land records, and preserve evidence explaining why the purchase was made in good faith.

Uganda’s Supreme Court decision in Kampala District Land Board and George Mitala v Venansio Babweyaka and Others, Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007, reported as [2008] UGSC 37, shows why occupation and customary law cannot be reduced to a casual site visit. The dispute concerned land in Kampala and competing claims based on occupation, customary ownership and a later lease. The Supreme Court treated the legal requirements for proving customary tenure seriously. The losing side’s difficulty was not simply that people had been present on the land; it was that the legal basis of the asserted customary ownership had not been properly established under the applicable historical and statutory rules. The advocacy lesson is clear: plead the precise tenure claimed, identify the facts that create it, call evidence of the relevant custom and link the evidence to the statute. Occupation by itself is not a complete legal argument.

Due diligence should be written into the transaction timetable. The agreement should make payment conditional on satisfactory searches, consent where required, discharge of a mortgage, production of original or verifiable records, vacant possession if promised, and registration of the buyer’s interest. If a seller refuses a search, refuses access to the land or insists on immediate payment before documents are checked, that is not a minor inconvenience. It is information about risk.

Boundaries are proved by records, measurements and conduct

Boundary disputes are often described as arguments about a fence. The fence may be only the last visible symptom. The legal boundary may depend on a cadastral plan, survey beacons, a mutation or subdivision record, a transfer instrument, a road reserve, a natural feature, an adjudication record or a long-standing agreement between neighbours. A lawyer should not promise a result before a qualified surveyor has identified the disputed line and the registry or land office has been asked to reconcile the plans.

The useful evidence is usually cumulative. It may include the registered plan, surveyor’s field notes, photographs, historic aerial images, local authority records, rates or rent receipts, building approvals, witness evidence about possession and a clear explanation of when the alleged encroachment began. Mediation can work well where neighbours need a practical line rather than a declaration that one person is morally right. If settlement fails, the pleadings should identify the exact parcel, the exact line and the exact remedy sought. A claim that merely says “the neighbour took my land” invites delay and makes expert evidence harder to use.

The same principle applies to commercial property. A company buying a warehouse should verify access roads, loading areas, parking rights, utility corridors, environmental restrictions and the legal authority of the person signing. A title search that ignores the road or the actual boundaries may confirm ownership of a parcel that cannot lawfully be used for the business the client intended.

Leases need an exit plan, not only a rent figure

Lease disputes commonly begin with a clause that looked harmless when the parties signed. The rent review mechanism is unclear. The permitted use does not match the licence. Repairs are allocated generally but not divided between structural and ordinary maintenance. The tenant alters the premises without consent. The landlord accepts rent after a breach and later argues that the lease ended automatically. These problems are avoidable if the lawyer drafts the commercial relationship as carefully as the transfer of land.

A useful lease identifies the premises by a plan, states the term and renewal process, explains rent and deposits, allocates taxes and service charges, regulates assignment and subletting, sets out repair and insurance duties, and states what happens after a breach. It should distinguish a breach that can be cured from one that permits termination, and it should specify how notices are served. In a commercial lease, the lawyer should also check licensing, zoning, signage, fire and safety requirements and any consent needed from a lender or public authority.

The legal route after breach is not identical across the EAC. Kenya’s Land Act and the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act may apply differently depending on the premises and the tenancy. Uganda’s Landlord and Tenant Act 2022 supplies statutory rules for many tenancies, including notice and termination questions. Tanzania’s land and contract framework must be read with the type of right of occupancy and the dispute forum. Rwanda, Burundi, the DRC, South Sudan and Somalia require the lease to be tested against local civil, land, registration, planning and administrative rules rather than imported from a neighbouring country.

The lawyer’s value is most visible when a landlord wants to change the locks or a tenant wants to stop paying. Self-help can turn a manageable contract dispute into a claim for unlawful eviction, damages, restoration of possession or an injunction. The safer course is to identify the contractual breach, serve the correct notice, preserve proof of service, seek an interim order where necessary and use the forum authorised by the law. A tenant defending a claim should not rely only on hardship; the defence should show payment, waiver, defective notice, retaliation, disrepair, unlawful entry or another legally recognised answer.

Eviction law protects process as well as property

A person may be occupying land without a registered title and still have legal protection against arbitrary removal. Conversely, a person with a title cannot always remove occupants personally. The answer depends on the status of the occupier, the reason for removal, the notice, the forum, the opportunity to be heard and the remedy sought. Housing adds a human dimension because an eviction can affect children, livelihoods, schooling, health and personal documents even where the landowner’s underlying claim is strong.

In Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority and Others [2021] KESC 34, the Supreme Court of Kenya treated forced eviction and the right to housing as constitutional questions, not merely as a contest between a registered owner and informal occupants. The successful litigation strategy combined evidence of the residents’ occupation and the manner of eviction with constitutional remedies. The case also shows why a lawyer should ask for an effective remedy, not only a declaration that a right was breached. Depending on the facts, that may include notice, consultation, alternative accommodation, compensation, a structured plan for removal or an order preventing destruction before the dispute is heard.

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights reached a related regional conclusion in African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya, the Ogiek case, Application No. 006/2012, judgment of 26 May 2017, followed by the reparations judgment of 23 June 2022. The Court accepted that an indigenous community’s connection to ancestral land could engage property, culture, religion, development and natural-resource rights under the African Charter even where the community did not hold conventional individual title. The advocates’ success came from presenting the claim as a collective rights case supported by historical, social and evidential material, rather than as a narrow trespass claim for a few named parcels.

The East African Court of Justice decision in Ololosokwan Village Council and Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Reference No. 10 of 2017, first reported as [2022] EACJ 25, is an equally important warning. The First Instance Division dismissed the substantive claim after finding that the applicants had not sufficiently proved that the evictions occurred on village land rather than within the Serengeti National Park. The evidence problem included hearsay, inconsistency and difficulty with the expert case. On appeal, the EACJ set aside the decision in Appeal No. 13 of 2022 and ordered a trial de novo because material evidence had not been properly considered and the standard of proof had to be applied correctly. The practical lesson for counsel is not that expert evidence always wins. It is that maps, expert qualifications, primary records, witness consistency and the precise legal location of the disputed land must be prepared before the hearing.

Across the eight states, a lawyer should therefore separate three questions: does the claimant have a property or occupancy right, was the decision to remove the person legally authorised, and was the process fair? Winning the first question does not automatically answer the second or third.

How to read a majority, dissent and appeal in practice

A majority judgment is the binding decision of the court, subject to appeal or later change. A dissenting judgment is the reasoned view of a judge who disagrees with the majority. It is not a second judgment that the losing party can enforce, and it does not change the title register by itself. Its practical value is different. A dissent can expose an alternative reading of a constitutional right, identify evidence the majority treated differently, or provide a disciplined argument for a later appeal or a future case.

For a lawyer, the safe method is to separate the holding from the reasoning that did not command a majority. The majority tells the client what the law presently requires. The dissent may show how to challenge the rule, limit it to its facts or invite a later court to reconsider it. In land litigation, this distinction matters because an advocate who tells a client that a persuasive dissent is already the law may create a second legal problem while trying to solve the first.

The EACJ’s handling of the Maasai villages dispute illustrates a related point even though the correction came through an appeal rather than a dissent. Courts can repair an evidential or procedural failure without immediately deciding that the underlying land claim is proved. A lawyer who loses at first instance should identify whether the problem was the legal rule, the pleadings, the admissibility of evidence, the standard of proof or the court’s treatment of material evidence. A carefully framed appeal can succeed on that basis. A general complaint that the judge was unfair is much less useful than identifying the precise error and showing how it affected the result.

The practical rule for an ordinary property owner

Before paying for land, search the register, inspect the land and ask who is using it. Before signing a lease, describe the premises, the permitted use, the money, the repairs, the notices and the exit route. Before fencing or demolishing, confirm the boundary and obtain the authority required. Before evicting, follow the notice and court procedure. Before filing a case, choose the forum, define the right and collect the evidence that proves the legal source of that right.

The comparison across East Africa does not produce one universal property checklist because the states organise land differently. It produces a better habit of mind. Property is both a document and a lived relationship. A lawyer protects the client by testing both: the legal record and the reality on the ground. That work may prevent a dispute, narrow it to a solvable issue or give a court the evidence needed to grant an effective remedy.

Ronald Serwanga is a Ugandan legal researcher and an advocate admitted to the Rwanda Bar. He writes for East Africa Legal Insight.

This legal training article provides general information for public education. Land registration, lease, eviction and court rules differ by country and may change. A person facing a transaction or dispute should obtain advice from a lawyer qualified in the relevant jurisdiction.

Sources Mentioned in This Training Article

The authorities mentioned in this training article are the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community; the Constitution of Kenya 2010; the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995; the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977; the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda as amended; the Constitution of Burundi 2005; the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of the Congo 2006; the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011; the Provisional Constitution of the Federal Republic of Somalia 2012 and later constitutional amendments; Kenya’s Land Act 2012, Land Registration Act 2012, Environment and Land Court Act 2011 and Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act; Uganda’s Land Act, Cap 227, Registration of Titles Act and Landlord and Tenant Act 2022; Tanzania’s Land Act 1999, Village Land Act 1999 and Land Disputes Courts Act 2002; Rwanda’s Law No. 27/2021 governing land and legislation on expropriation in the public interest; the Burundi Land Code 2011; the DRC Land Law of 20 July 1973 as amended; the South Sudan Land Act 2009 and Land Policy 2013; Somalia’s National Land Policy; Arthi Highway Developers Limited v West End Butchery Limited and Others [2015] eKLR; Dina Management Limited v County Government of Mombasa and Others [2023] KESC 30; Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority and Others [2021] KESC 34; Kampala District Land Board and George Mitala v Venansio Babweyaka and Others [2008] UGSC 37; Attorney General v Lohay Akonaay [1995] TLR 80; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya, Application No. 006/2012; and Ololosokwan Village Council and Others v Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Reference No. 10 of 2017, [2022] EACJ 25 and Appeal No. 13 of 2022.

Suggested Citation

Ronald Serwanga, "East Africa Property and Land Disputes Legal Advice" East Africa Legal Insight (21 September 2026).