A legal dispute between two brothers, Aden Bare Shill and former MP Elias Bare Shill, over inherited property has led to the Environment and Land Court suspending proceedings at the Garissa Rent Restrictions Tribunal.
The suit involves a family property inherited after their father’s death in 1973, with both brothers making conflicting claims about ownership and tenancy.
Aden Bare, the petitioner, argues that his brother, Elias, sought to have him evicted from the property through the Rent Tribunal, alleging non-payment of rent.
However, Aden maintains that he is not a rent-paying tenant but a rightful heir to the property, which includes five rental shops, five rental houses, and two residential houses.
Aden also claims that his brother’s attempt to evict him comes after the collapse of a succession case in the Kadhi’s Court, where the ownership issue was dismissed and referred to a competent court for resolution.
Justice John Muriungi Mutungi, ruling on the case, emphasized that damages would not be a sufficient remedy if the property were to be sold or transferred before the case’s conclusion.
The court expressed suspicion that Elias might have acted in bad faith by suddenly seeking rent after decades of silence, particularly following the collapse of the succession case.
Justice Mutungi ruled that the proceedings at the Rent Restrictions Tribunal were untenable, suggesting that Elias might have sought to pull a fast one against Aden by rushing to the tribunal.
The court further restrained Elias from selling or transferring the property, stating that no additional charges could be placed on it without court authorization.
Both parties were ordered to maintain the status quo concerning the property until the case is resolved.
Aden Bare also raised concerns about his brother’s previous attempts to transfer the property into his name while their father was unwell.
According to Aden, when the property was included in a list of 193 plots recommended for title deeds, he, along with two other brothers, requested that the title deed be registered under the family name, Bare Shill Abdi & Sons, which was granted by the County Council.
However, he later discovered during the succession case that Elias had already obtained a title for the property, which Aden alleges was done fraudulently.
Aden disputed his brother’s claim that their father had distributed the estate while he was still alive, arguing that Elias’ acquisition of the title was not legitimate.
He also denied Elias’ claims of having developed the property and insisted that he was never a tenant required to pay rent to his brother.
Elias, in his defense, argued that the property was legally transferred to him by their father to hold in trust for the family.
He also maintained that he has been paying land rates since acquiring the title and denied claims that their father was bedridden during the transfer.
Aden has sought an injunction to prevent Elias from taking any actions that could interfere with the property, including selling or subdividing it.
The court documents reveal that both Elias and the Chief Land Registrar have been sued, with the court focusing on preserving the property’s status until the legal dispute is fully resolved.
This family conflict highlights the complexities of inheritance disputes and property ownership, particularly when legal claims intersect with long-standing familial relationships.
Add Comment