Benefits of the sectional (sectional title) regime of ownership

• It simplifies sale transactions since individual sectional titles can be transferred in the typical way that land is transferred. Lengthy lease documents will no longer be required.
• Purchase of sectional units is less costly since the Purchaser will not be responsible for the Vendor’s Advocates legal fees, unless otherwise agreed. They will also not be required to incur costs for transfer of reversionary interest.
• Administrative challenges surrounding transfer of reversionary interest and issuance of share certificates are eliminated.
• Land rates/rent to be paid per unit thus enhancing revenue collection.
• The sectional regime increases access to financing. By simplifying the process of obtaining title documents for the units, unit owners can easily secure financing by charging the units in favour of the lenders.
• It offers better protection to the unit owners. Sectional developments are regulated by the comprehensive provisions of the Act and the by-laws of the management corporation. The rules also prescribe disclosure requirements which enable purchasers to be informed of the status of the development including any existing encumbrances when purchasing a sectional unit.
• It promotes vertical development on land & therefore optimizes the use of the limited land resources in Kenya. This increases the number of units available for homeowners. It is, therefore, good for high population density areas.

What is the purpose of the Sectional Properties Act, 2020 (Act) and Sectional Properties Regulations, 2021 (Regulations)?

The Act provides for the division of buildings into units to be owned by individual proprietors and common property to be owned by proprietors of the units as tenants in common and to provide for the use and management of the units and common property.

The Regulations operationalise the Act and outline the procedure for registration of sectional plans and conversion of long-term leases registered under the Land Registration Act, no. 3 of 2012 (LRA) to sectional titles, among others.

On the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in employment termination processes: The case of Gogni Rajope Construction Company Limited & Another v Cornel Otieno Omondi (Civil Appeal No. 321 of 2019) [2025] KECA 161 (KLR)

The case Gogni Rajope Construction Company Limited & Another v Cornel Otieno Omondi (Civil Appeal No. 321 of 2019) [2025] KECA 161 (KLR) was decided by the Court of Appeal in Nairobi on 7th February 2025. The appellants, Gogni Rajope Construction Company Limited and Cebaud Engineering Services Limited, appealed against a judgment by the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) delivered on 5th October 2018.​Kenya Law

Background

Cornel Otieno Omondi was employed as an Assistant Projects Engineer by Gogni Rajope Construction Company Limited under a two-year contract commencing on 13th February 2012. His salary and other emoluments were processed through Cebaud Engineering Services Limited, a sister company. In July 2012, Omondi was sent on compulsory leave, and his employment was terminated on 30th August 2012, with the termination purportedly effective from 24th July 2012.​Kenya Law

Omondi filed a memorandum of claim on 18th February 2013, alleging unlawful termination and seeking Kshs. 3,420,790.50 in various dues. The appellants contended that Omondi was dismissed for gross misconduct, including unauthorized hiring of project equipment, absconding duty, and misrepresentation. They also argued that Omondi was sent a notice to show cause and was given an opportunity to respond.​Kenya Law

Employment and Labour Relations Court Ruling

The ELRC found that while the appellants had valid reasons for terminating Omondi's employment, the process followed was flawed. The court noted discrepancies in the dates of the show cause letter and the termination letter, and found that Omondi was not accorded a fair hearing as required under Section 41 of the Employment Act. Consequently, the court awarded Omondi Kshs. 1,222,146.42 in damages.​Kenya Law

Court of Appeal Decision

The appellants appealed the ELRC's decision, raising several grounds, including misinterpretation of the Employment Act, failure to address the applicability of Section 45(3) regarding the duration of employment, and improper award of compensation. The Court of Appeal, after re-evaluating the evidence and considering the submissions, upheld the ELRC's judgment.​Kenya Law

The Court emphasized that while the appellants had justifiable reasons for terminating Omondi's employment, they failed to follow the proper procedure as stipulated in Section 41 of the Employment Act. The Court also noted that Section 45(3) of the Act, which limits claims for unfair termination to employees with at least 13 months of continuous service, was not applicable in this case, as the issue had not been properly raised or addressed in the lower courts.​Kenya Law

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' appeal, affirming the ELRC's decision and the award of Kshs. 1,222,146.42 to Omondi. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in employment termination processes, as mandated by the Employment Act.​