Contemporary Issues in Property Law
Contemporary Issues in Property Law
property law
Dr Francis Kariuki, C.Arb
Protection of cultural property
• Historical injustices faced by communities.
• Property and heritage laws are state-centric.
• Access and control of cultural property by communities?
• Communities’ rights vis-à-vis state obligations?
• How do we right the wrongs?
Land tenure security
• Gross disparities in land ownership and inequitable distribution of
land
• Historical land injustices that remain unresolved
• Rapid population growth and urbanization
• Forced evictions
• Illegal and irregular allocation of land rights
• Over-politicization of land and ethnic clashes
• Political goodwill in implementing land reforms
Digital property
• Refers to electronic information one creates or owns stored either
online or in an electronic storage device.
• It includes files, codes, passwords needed to access digital files,
virtual currencies (cryptocurrencies), websites, blogs, domain names,
social media pages etc.
• Risks involved with digital property?
Property rights in the body or body parts
1. Preserved human biological material
• Different people and institutions have various interests in human
biological materials each wanting access to or control of them.
• Researchers, medical practitioners, patients, families, the community and the
police.
• For centuries, in Australia and England and Wales, individuals did not
have any proprietary interests in their excised tissue, but subsequent
holders of preserved tissue might have.
• However, in Jonathan Yearworth and others v North Bristol NHS Trust (2009)
the Court in England held that the appellants, who had deposited semen
samples for freezing before they undertook cancer treatment, had “for the
purposes of a claim in negligence … ownership of the sperm which they had
ejaculated”.
• Similarly, the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia, in Bazley v
Wesley Monash IVF (2010) took a property-based approach to
determine how a semen sample stored shortly before death
should be dealt with. The Court opined that the co-executors of
the estate had sufficient proprietary interests in the semen to
legally demand its return from the laboratory where it was held.