A Catholic church in Siaya County is facing eviction from a land parcel over an unpaid Sh50,000 from a purchase deal dating back to 1976.

The Environment and Land Court ruled that the church's five decades of occupation could not defeat the registered landowner's title because it never paid the agreed purchase price despite building a permanent church on the land.

The court said that the church, which is under the Catholic Diocese of Kisumu, had no legal basis to remain on the property after the landowner, Lawrence Atinga Oyugi, withdrew his consent.

In the judgment dated July 24, 2026, the court allowed Mr Oyugi’s appeal and overturned a decision by a Magistrate's Court in 2024, which had dismissed his demand for the church's eviction.

The court ordered the Diocese, through its Registered Trustee, to vacate the parcel known as Siaya/Nyagunda/3655 within 180 days or face automatic eviction. The parties were also given 90 days to negotiate a purchase, lease or another settlement if they wished to formalise the church's continued occupation.

The dispute dates back to 1976, when Mr Oyugi allowed the Catholic church to build on the land under an agreement that it would pay him Sh50,000 once construction was completed. The deal was agreed after three church members and elders approached Mr Oyugi.

The court found that the church completed the building but never paid the agreed amount, prompting Mr Oyugi to challenge its claim during land adjudication before eventually securing registration of the property in his name in 2010.

The Adjudication Committee had determined at its hearing that this money was to be paid after construction of the church building had been completed. This agreement was evidenced by a handwritten document produced before the court, dated March 20, 1976, referenced as “The Land Issues on March 20, 1976”.

The said document indicated that it is, in fact, an agreement granting a piece of land to the members of Orengo Catholic Church.

The court said the church's occupation initially had the owner's consent but later became unlawful after that permission was withdrawn through the litigation.

"Consent having been revoked, the respondent's continuing presence on the land does in fact amount to trespass," the court said.

The Diocese argued that its long occupation and improvements had created a constructive trust and overriding interests capable of defeating the registered title.

It also maintained that evicting a church after decades of occupation would be inequitable because the congregation had developed the land in good faith.

The court rejected those arguments. It held that constructive trust had never been pleaded before the trial court and could not properly be introduced on appeal.

Even if it had been pleaded, Justice Dena said the facts did not support it because the agreed purchase price was never paid.

"The respondent cannot therefore claim that it had all along acted on the basis and representation that it would obtain proprietary interest in the suit property, yet it never paid the agreed consideration," Justice Dena said.

"For this reason, the respondent cannot rely upon the doctrine of constructive trust."

The court also found significant inconsistencies in the Diocese's evidence. Its defence stated that it had purchased the land from Oyugi before adjudication.

However, witnesses later testified that a church member donated the land. The court concluded that the evidence instead showed the parties had agreed on a sale in 1976, with payment deferred until completion of the church building.

The court also revisited earlier litigation arising from the same land. The court noted that the Diocese unsuccessfully challenged the adjudication process through judicial review after arguing it had not been heard.

The High Court dismissed that case in 2017, finding the church should instead have pursued the statutory appeal available under the Land Adjudication Act. That decision remained unchallenged and affirmed Oyugi's registration as proprietor.

While granting the appeal, the court acknowledged the church's long presence on the land and its role in serving the local community.

She urged the parties to pursue negotiations before the eviction period expires.

"It would be prudent for the parties to consider amicable negotiations to formalise the respondent’s occupation," she said, adding that any agreement could include a purchase or lease "at the pleasure of the appellant."