Why Bill seeking to abolish land control boards requires scrutiny

Many have prevented the secretive sale of matrimonial land by proprietors out to do so without the knowledge of their spouses in rural Kenya.

The boards also bear the duty of preventing unwarranted fragmentation of agricultural land. However, in most parts of Kenya, they have not been effective enough in this.

Land Control Boards may now be abolished if a Bill introduced in the National Assembly by Wilberforce Oundo, the Member of Parliament for Funyula, sails through.

Dr Oundo, a land economist and once a senior official of the Institution of Surveyors of Kenya, certainly knows why he seeks to have the Land Control Act repealed. His Land Control Bill, 2023 is not new.

He had introduced it in the 12th Parliament, which adjourned sine die before the Bill could be processed.

The Bill matured on August 10 and will now proceed to the other phases of consideration in keeping with procedure. The principal object of the Bill is to repeal and replace the Land Control Act and to align the law governing dealings in agricultural land with the provisions of the 2010 Constitution, the Environment and Land Court Act under which disputes are determined, and the Land Registration Act, under which all titles to land in Kenya are registered nowadays.

The Bill proposes the establishment of land control committees in each constituency to replace the current land control boards.

Among other things, the Bill proposes that these committees develop dispute resolution mechanisms in order to be able to undertake evidence gathering and fact-finding on request by parties or the courts on matters relating to land and land use.

The Bill improves on several features of the old law, including its membership and duties. Curiously, the Bill provides that one of the functions of the Land Control Committee will be to resolve any dispute over general boundaries within their jurisdiction.

Yet, our Land Registration Act provides for the determination of disputes over general boundaries by land registrars. This provision will need to be revisited to avoid unnecessary conflict with existing legislation.

The Bill also seeks to preserve the repugnant provision that gives land control boards powers to reject a transaction for the transfer of agricultural land to a person deemed to have sufficient agricultural land.

First, this is hard to determine. In addition, the Land Act already provides a mechanism for guiding minimum and maximum land holdings.

This provision is therefore superfluous. Affected State and non-state institutions, and real estate practitioners, should make time to scrutinise and inform this Bill before it becomes law.

The writer is a consultant on land governance. Ibrahim Mwathane([email protected])