For decades, anyone who bought a flat, maisonette or office unit in Kenya rarely got a title to that specific space. For a long time, owning such a unit did not actually mean holding a title to that specific space. Most buyers were given long-term subleases, often for 99 years, carved out of a main “mother title” that remained in the developer’s name. Others were issued share certificates in a management company that supposedly represented their interest in the building. On paper, this worked, in reality, it placed owners in a difficult position because their rights depended heavily on a developer or company that often stepped back once the units were sold.
The Sectional Properties Act, 2020 was introduced to fix this gap. Since it came into force on 28 December 2020, it has changed how property in multi-unit buildings is owned, managed, and even financed. The most important shift is simple: ownership is now direct. Instead of relying on a parent title, each unit can now be registered separately and issued with its own title. This means that if you buy an apartment today, you can have a title deed in your own name, just like someone who owns land. Section 6 of the Act also requires that this title clearly show the unit owner’s share in the common property. So, things like lifts, driveways, gardens, and the structure of the building are no longer vague or assumed, your share in them is officially recorded as part of your title.
The Act also made it easier for more buildings to fall under this system. Previously, only leasehold properties with at least 45 years remaining could qualify. This has now been reduced to 21 years, allowing many older developments, especially those on government leases, to be converted into sectional units. This change has brought a much larger number of properties into the new ownership framework.
Reforms like this would mean very little if they only applied to new developments. The Act recognises that reality and directly addresses the thousands of existing buildings still operating under long-term subleases or company-title arrangements. Any long-term sublease that gave someone ownership of an apartment, maisonette, townhouse, or office and was registered before 28 December 2020, must now be converted to comply with section 54(5) of the Land Registration Act within a set period. What makes this particularly practical is that the process does not have to wait on the developer alone, it can be started by a management company or even a single unit owner.
The law also backs this requirement with real consequences. If a building is not converted within the prescribed timeline, the Registrar has the power to place a restriction on the parent title. In simple terms, this freezes any further dealings, no sales, no transfers, no new charges until the conversion is done. This is not just a procedural issue; it has real-life impact. An owner in a building that has not been converted could find themselves unable to sell, refinance, or transfer their unit at the exact moment they need to, simply because the building has not complied. In practice, the conversion process itself is detailed and technical. It starts with a licensed surveyor preparing a sectional plan that clearly maps out each unit, the shared areas, and any exclusive-use spaces like parking bays or balconies. The surveyor must also calculate each unit’s participation factor based on its floor area. Under the 2020 Act, this plan must be geo-referenced, reflecting a more modern and precise approach than what was required under the 1987 law.
That plan is only one part of a larger submission. It must be accompanied by an architect’s certificate confirming the building meets structural requirements, proof that the building has the necessary county approvals, and evidence that all existing owners and occupiers have been notified of the conversion. These, together with the prescribed application forms, are then lodged at the Lands Registry before individual titles can be issued. In reality, most delays happen not because the law is unclear, but because the process is incomplete. Missing documents, errors in plans, or poor coordination between professionals can stall an application for months or even years. That is why early planning and proper legal and technical guidance often make the difference between a smooth conversion and a prolonged, frustrating process.
Perhaps the least visible but most consequential change introduced by the Act concerns how buildings are actually run day to day. The 1987 Act required every sectional property to appoint an institutional manager, a designated individual responsible for maintaining common areas, collecting service charges, enforcing by-laws and keeping the scheme compliant with its statutory obligations. The 2020 Act does away with this requirement. In its place, a body corporate, the Corporation, comes into existence automatically the moment the sectional plan is registered, comprising all unit owners, and it is left to the Corporation’s board of directors to decide, at its own discretion, whether to engage a professional property manager at all.
While this gives owners more control, it also means they must actively participate. In some cases, where owners do not engage, buildings have struggled with poor maintenance, unpaid levies, and weak enforcement of rules. The Act tries to inject some discipline into this system by requiring the corporate seal to be used only pursuant to a board resolution and in the presence of at least two directors, and by mandating that any material change in the use or density of common property first receive county government approval, a safeguard against the kind of unilateral dealing with shared spaces that was common, and largely unchecked, under the old management-company model.
The Act also changes how disputes within a sectional property are handled. Instead of taking most disagreements to the Business Premises Rent Tribunal, as was the case under the 1987 law, the new framework allows Corporations to set up their own Internal Dispute Resolution Committee. This Committee is given the power to hear and decide disputes, especially those involving breaches of by-laws, and it can impose penalties without a fixed statutory limit. What this means in practice is that disputes can now be handled closer to home, within the scheme itself, making the process more accessible and, in many cases, faster. The Committee’s decisions are not just informal, they can be enforced through the courts and can also be appealed to the Environment and Land Court. This is a clear improvement from the previous system, where tribunal decisions were largely final and offered very limited room for appeal.
However, this system is not without its challenges. While the Committee can make decisions and impose penalties, it does not have direct power to enforce them. If a party refuses to comply, the matter still has to go to court to turn that decision into something enforceable. In that sense, while the new approach brings dispute resolution closer and makes it more accessible, it does not entirely remove the time and cost associated with court processes.
For buyers, the practical effect of all this is that buying an apartment or office unit now requires a much deeper level of due diligence than it did a few years ago. It is no longer enough to simply confirm that a unit exists and has a lease or title. Buyers must now check that a sectional plan has actually been registered, that the participation quota reflects the true size of the unit, that service charges and sinking fund contributions are up to date, and that the management corporation is not involved in any disputes over common property. These are not optional extras, they go to the heart of whether the title is clean and usable, which is exactly what the reform was meant to guarantee.
For developers, the Act carries a dual reality. On one hand, it increases compliance obligations and requires early coordination between surveyors, architects, lawyers, and regulators before units can even be sold. On the other hand, it significantly improves marketability once compliance is achieved. Units that have properly issued, individual titles are easier to sell and easier to finance but reaching that stage demands careful planning and strict adherence to the conversion process from the outset of the project.
For lenders, the shift has also been significant. Traditional mortgage documents that referenced a single mother title are no longer sufficient in sectional developments. Banks now have to align their security documentation with individual unit titles and also account for the realities of sectional ownership, including obligations to the management corporation. This has also introduced new protections, such as rights that allow lenders to intervene where levy arrears threaten the value of their security, protections that did not exist under the old framework.
For ordinary Kenyans who have lived for years under the uncertainty of subleases tied to someone else’s mother title, the Act offers something more tangible: a clearer path to genuine, independent ownership, but that promise only becomes real when conversion is completed properly, when governance structures are actually funded and functional, and when unit owners take active responsibility within the management corporations that now govern their buildings, instead of leaving that role entirely to developers or managing agents. Without that, the same problems the law was meant to solve can still find their way back.
