Treading very lightly...

It is apparent that something can be legal yet morally wrong, legal yet unjust, legal yet inhumane.

So the decision as to what is done, in a case-by-case basis, is political. Based on the government in power, or the slum, or the grabber, the government draws a line where it is most politically expedient.

@alma, your argument is legally sound but inhumane.
@a4architect, your argument is just but illegal.

@muganda if my argument is sound legally then that's what needs to be followed.

Otherwise we have a situation in this country where squatters are evicted mercilessly from their property, people evicted at night from Mau forest...On the other hand, the rich people are allowed to occupy land illegally.

That is immoral in itself.

The rich people on this property are insisting that their title is legal. The owners are saying it isn't so is the law.

While it is true that it doesn't look right to demolish their properties, it is the right thing to do.

But they have an avenue in law which they are being hoodwinked not to use.

They can negotiate with Kevevapi to keep the land and houses, as long as they pay the undeveloped land value.

Kevevapi is not made up of evil people, they will surely accept.

Then the owners can sue the developers.

That's the legal aspect that they are not being told about. They are just being told to fight for their illegal title to the death.

No one wants to sue the people who illegally nyankuad this property. Now that is the whole immoral aspect of property in Kenya.

That is hubris, illegal and immoral.

Ni hayo tu.

@a4architect, noting that your question is now completely political...

The native owner before colonial government did ask for their land by force - 'land and freedom'. It was illegal according to the colonial law. British had to grant independence in pursuit of justice because the World of the day gave them little choice.

@muganda, the native owner was either the maasai or kamba who were evicted to pave way for british colonial settlers. They didnt partake in forcefull request for their land. Were the natives compensated adequately if at all? Who then, is the original owner between the natives, colonial govt and kevevapi?

So why does it seem that this was the game plan all along?

They only went for the houses under construction.

Then Sonko shows up. He calls the president.

You really can't believe that the President can do something on a phone, do you?

The gov't is short of cash. So how to get it. Get all your land back.

So Sonko looks like a hero, the President is the Savior, the Agric CS looks like a reasonable man.

But the occupiers end up paying anyway.