Week 3 - Insertion. Understanding the dilemma on the ownership and rights to slum land.

Once there was a father who bequeathed a portion of his land to his son as was customary.

With time, the father aged and was weak in watching his cattle and meeting daily need.

One day, as the cattle of the ageing father were grazing near the boundary of the two farms, they broke the fence and went on to eat the grass and ravage the pristine lawn in his son's land.

Understandably, the son was furious! He had worked hard and spent a pretty penny in landscaping his property. The cow litter rubbed on his sore wound.

Infuriated, he went to the judge demanding that his neighbor pay for the damages caused to his property.

The case was seemingly straight forward. The title proved it was his land. The neighbors cows had caused the damage - that was not in dispute.

As the Judge proceeded to write out the judgement, she paused for a while and asked:

"Pardon me but I must say you quite resemble your neighbor - any possible blood relation"

The son responded nonchalantly: "Yes, actually he is my father"

"Oh, interesting" and she continued her writing.... A few moments later she paused:

"And, out of curiosity - if I may ask... how did you acquire this property?"

The son responded a bit hesitant: "My father bequeathed me"

"I see...Why would you think that the cows breached the boundary and ravaged your property"

The son, a bit abashed responded: "The fence was quite strong but father is now aged and not able to keep up with the maintenance. He is also struggling with getting enough cattle feed."

What do you think should be the right judgement?

Legally speaking - its a straight forward case

In the context of human rights?

this is the very same case of the right to dignified living for Urban slum residents on private land - which is majority of slums in Nairobi.

The Father is the government of Kenya.

The son is the private capital holder.

Land represents a resource - that was originally public and now privatized.

The cow and desire for food represent basic needs - food , water, healthcare, dignified housing.

The lawn represents a non-basic desire.

In a long drawn case between Orbit Chemical company and the Government of Kenya the court recently ruled the government of Kenya (the father) pay the legal title holder (the son) 19 billion shillings for frustrating their legal right to access and use the 95 acres of land in Embakasi which has since been encroached and used to house squatters as well as some illegal informal low income housing. (https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/business-news/article/2001263143/court-orders-government-to-pay-private-firm-sh19-billion-for-taking-its-land-to-settle-squatters).

However, the Government of Kenya (the father) is just a representative of these people living on this land that by the constitution is their land. In essence the court ruled that the impoverished people - who had bequeathed the land to the private holder whose private interest did not result in the betterment of their immediate basic life (on the contrary), forgo basic necessities of buying food, taking children to schools, healthcare... to pay the private capital holder land.

There is genuine debate on the danger of falling knives. If we fail to honor contracts, then incentives for investment may be wished away.

On the other hand however, could there be not an alternative way of solving his dilemma?