¹ The Land Registration Act was introduced subsequent to land tenure reform initiated under the Swynnerton Plan in Central Province in the mid-1950s as the state's response to the political upheaval which culminated in Mau Mau. See Sorrenson, M.P.K., Land Reform in Kikuyu Country: A Study of Government Policy, London, 1967.Google Scholar

² Okoth-Ogendo, H.W.O., “The political economy of land law: an essay in the legal organisation of underdevelopment in Kenya, 1895–1974, Ph.D. dissertation, Law School, Yale University, 1978, 494.Google Scholar

³ Okoth-Ogendo, H.W.O., “Some issues of theory in the study of tenure relations in African agriculture”, (1989) 59, 1Africa 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Okoth-Ogendo, , 1978, 508.Google Scholar

⁵ Okeyo, A. Pala, “Daughters of the lakes and rivers: colonization and the land rights of Luo women”, in Etienne, M. and Leacock, E. (eds.), Women and Colonization. Anthropological Perspectives, New York, 1980, 186–213.Google Scholar

⁶ Scott, J., Domination and Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, New Haven and London, 1990.Google Scholar

⁷ Kenya, Report of Committee on Native Land Tenure in Kikuyu Province, Nairobi, 1929 (NLTKPC Report).Google Scholar

⁸ Report of the Kenya Land Commission, London, 1934 (KLC Report).Google Scholar

⁹ The basic political and social units in Kikuyu society. See Muriuki, G., A History of the Kikuyu 1500–1900, Nairobi, 1974. Central Province comprises the districts of Kiambu, Murang'a (then Fort Hall) and Nyeri.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Fitzpatrick, P., “Custom as imperialism”, unpublished manuscript, 1988, 1.Google Scholar

¹¹ Scott, J., Weapons of the Weak. Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance, New Haven and London, 1985, 346.Google Scholar Following Bourdieu, P. (Outline of a Theory of Practice (trans. R. Nice), Cambridge, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, such use of “custom” is distinguished from doxa, where “the natural social world appears as self-evident”; it is that which is “taken for granted” (164).

¹² Chanock, M., Law, Custom and Social Order: the Colonial Experience in Malawi and Zambia, Cambridge, 1985, 17.Google Scholar

¹³ Foucault, M., “Two lectures”, in C., Gordon (ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Writings 1972–1977 by Michel Foucault, New York, 1980, 78–108.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cited in Sorrenson, , Origins of European Settlement in Kenya, Nairobi, 1968, 178–179.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cited in Sorrenson, M., “The official mind and Kikuyu land tenure (1895–1939)”, in Proceedings of the East African Institute for Social Research Conference held at Kivukoni College, Dar es Salaam, January 1963, 1.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Beech, M.W., “Kikuyu system of land tenure”, (1917) 17 Journal of the African Society 47.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Kitching, Gavin, Class and Economic Change in Kenya: The Making of an African Petite Bourgeoisie, New Haven, 1980, 282.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Beech, M.W., “Kikuyu system of land tenure”, (continued), (1918) 17 Journal of the African Society 142–143.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Beech, , 1917, 47–48.Google Scholar

²⁰ Beech, , 1918, 138–139.Google Scholar

²¹ Beech, , 1917, 56.Google Scholar

²² Beech, , 1918, 136.Google Scholar

²³ Ibid., 142–143.

²⁴ Anderson, B., Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London, 1993.Google Scholar

²⁵ Berman, B., Control and Crisis in Colonial Kenya. The Dialectic of Domination, London, 1990.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ainsworth, J., “The Kikuyu Gethaka”, unpublished paper, University of Edinburgh Gen. 762Google Scholar, Arthur's, J. papers, 1920, 10Google Scholar; Barlow, A.R., (“Kikuyu land tenure and inheritance”, Journal of the East Africa and Uganda Natural History Society, 45–46, 56–66)Google Scholar, of the Church of Scotland Mission, Tumu Tumu, Nyeri, acting as interpreter for Ainsworth's inquiry, did not agree with Ainsworth's interpretation of the data. He recognized, for example, that “the idea of absolute ownership” was present in Kiambu (10).

²⁷ Ainsworth, ibid.

²⁸ University of Edinburgh Gen. 762, File 5. Papers of John Arthur, Church of Scotland Mission Kikuyu Annual Report, 1918. Clough, M.S., (Fighting Two Sides, Kenyan Chiefs and Politicians, 1918–1940, Niwot, Colorado, 1990, 45–46Google Scholar) argues that mortality was high “more because of bad food, almost non-existent medical care, and exposure to new diseases than because of enemy action at the front”.

²⁹ Tignor, R.L., The Colonial Transformation of Kenya: The Kamba, Kikuyu, and Maasai from 1900–1939, Princeton, New Jersey, 1976, 167Google Scholar; Berman, op. cit., 145–146; Clough, op. cit.

³⁰ Berman, 146–148; Clough, 47.

³¹ Kenya, Supreme Court, 1923, 4. University of Edinburgh Gen. 762, File 6. Papers of John Arthur, CMS, Kikuyu.

³² The KCA, formed in 1924, was both a more populist organization than the Kikuyu Association and a more militant one. See Clough, op. cit., 48–53, 122–123.

³³ CSM, Memorandum prepared by the Kikuyu Mission Council on Female Circumcision, 1931, in National Library of Scotland ACC 7548/D64; Tignor, , 1976, 242–246Google Scholar; Clough, 144–145. Further archival materials are located in the Public Records Office, London: Colonial Office series: 533; 392/1; 392/10; 394/110; 407/14; 408/3; 418/2. Also see: Rosberg, C.G. and Nottingham, J., The Myth of‘Mau Mau’: Nationalism in Kenya, Nairobi, 1966Google Scholar; Murray, J., “The Kikuyu female circumcision controversy, with special reference to the Church Missionary Society's ‘sphere of influence’”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1974Google Scholar; Presley, C.A., “The transformation of Kikuyu women and their nationalism”, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1986Google Scholar; Davison, J., with the women of Mutira, Voices from Mutira. Lives of Rural Gikuyu Women, Boulder, 1980.Google Scholar

³⁴ NLTKPC Report, 9.

³⁵ See Sacks, K., Sisters and Wives: The Past and Future of Sexual Equality, Chicago, 1982Google Scholar, for a discussion of the conflict within a kin corporate mode of production between men (husbands and brothers) and women (wives and sisters) in relation to the means and forces of production. For further discussion of these tensions in Kikuyu society, see Mackenzie, F., “Land and labour: women and men in agricultural change, Murang'a District, Kenya”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa, 1986Google Scholar; Mackenzie, F., “Gender and land rights in Murang'a District, Kenya”, (1990) 17, 4Journal of Peasant Studies 609–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁶ Cowen, M., “Capital and household production: the case of Wattle in Kenya's Central Province, 1903–1964”, Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University, 1978, 18.Google Scholar

³⁷ For an extended analysis of the evidence of the NLTKP and the KLC, see Mackenzie, F., Strategies of Silence: The Politics of Land and Environment in Colonial Kenya, 1890–1952, forthcoming.Google Scholar

³⁸ For example, NLTKPC Report, 48–51, 65; KLC Report, 221–231.

³⁹ Muriuki, , op. cit., 43Google Scholar; Kershaw, G., “The land is the people: a study of Kikuyu social organization”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1972, 258–259Google Scholar; Routledge, W.S. and Routledge, K., With a Prehistoric People: the Akihtyu of British East Africa, London, 1910, 5.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ NLTKPC Report, 37, 40, 53.

⁴¹ Santos, S.B. de S., “Law: a map of misreading toward a postmodern conception of law”, (1987) 14, 3Journal of Law and Society 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴² Njonjo, A.I., “The Africanization of the ‘White Highlands’: a study in agrarian class struggles in Kenya, 1950–1974”, Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1978.Google Scholar

⁴³ Kershaw, , op. cit., 18.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ KLC Report, also Njonjo, , op. cit., 49.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ NLTKPC Report, 43.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 57.

⁴⁷ NLTKPC Report, 26. Kikuyu myths of origin support the notion of power previously held by women and transferred through guile or force to men. For example, see Kenyatta, J., Facing Mount Kenya: The Traditional Life of the Gikuyu, London, 1983Google Scholar; Beecher, L.J., The Kikuyu, The Peoples of Kenya No. 9, Nairobi, 1944.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ NLTKPC Report, 72.

⁴⁹ CSM, op. cit., 44.

⁵⁰ Kenya National Archives (KNA) History of Fort Hall District, 1918, 18; Fort Hall District Report (FHDAR), 1926, 11–12.

⁵¹ Cotran, E., “The development and reform of the law in Kenya”, [1983] J.A.L. 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The Supreme Court and some of the first class subordinate courts were presided over by professional, British-trained lawyers. Other subordinate courts were “manned” by administrative officers.

⁵² KNA, Native Affairs Department Annual Report, 1930, (NADAR) 32–32, 84; 1931, 38–39. The one visible attempt in the district record to take a land case to the Magistrate's Court, Macharia v. Nguru wa Kairu, Civil Case No. 3 of 1941, was thrown out on the grounds that there was “no such thing as individual tenure, other than tenure within the clan” (KNA FHDAR 1941, 11). For further discussion, see Ghai, Y.P. and McAuslan, J.P.W.D., Public Law and Political Change in Kenya. A Study in the Legal Framework of Government from Colonial Tones to the Present, Nairobi, 1970.Google Scholar

⁵³ KNA FHDAR, 1938, 10–11. This situation remained in place until the African Courts Ordinance of 1951. Native Tribunals became “African Courts” with appeals to an African Appeal Court and then to the DC. From there, appeals were heard in a new Court of Review, not by the Provincial Commissioner (Cotran, , op. cit., 43).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ KNA, History of Fort Hall District, 1910, 11–12.

⁵⁵ Throup, D., Economic and Social Origins of Mau Mau 1945–1953, London, 1982, 72.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ KNA History of Fort Hall District, 1918, 20; FHDAR, 1929, 14.

⁵⁷ KNA FHDAR, 1948, 7.

⁵⁸ KNA FHDAR, 1933, 17; 1948, 8; 1951, 7.

⁵⁹ KNA FHDAR, 1919–20, 1929, 1939, 1949.

⁶⁰ KNA FHDAR, 1930, 4.

⁶¹ KNA FHDAR, 1951, 7.

⁶² KNA NADAR, 1950, 10–11.

⁶³ KNA NADAR, 1951, 39–40.

⁶⁴ KNA FHDAR, 1939, 15.

⁶⁵ KNA FHDAR, 1930, 4.

⁶⁶ Cowen, op. cit., 73–74.

⁶⁷ KNA FHDAR, 1932, 2.

⁶⁸ Clough, op. cit.; also Tignor, op. cit., 54–55.

⁶⁹ Taylor, D.R.F., “Fort Hall District, Kenya: a geographical consideration of the problems and potential of a developing area”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1966, 53.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ KNA FHDAR, 1925, 5. Also, see Kitching, op. cit., 188–190, 194–195; KNA FHDAR, 1947, 3.

⁷¹ Cowen, M., “Before and after Mau Mau in Kenya”, (1989) 16, 2Journal of Peasant Studies 260–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Throup, op. cit., 140.

⁷² Barlow, , op. cit., 64.Google Scholar

⁷³ Mackenzie, F., Murang'a District Agricultural Histories (unpublished).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Fisher, J., The Anatomy of Kikuyu Domesticity and Husbandry, Nairobi and London, 1954, 202.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ KNA FHDAR, 1948, 2.

⁷⁶ Chanock, , op. cit., 20.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ KNA FHDAR, 1944, 8.

⁷⁸ KNA FHDAR, 1944, 8. A baraza is a meeting held at a chief's encampment or bama.

⁷⁹ KNA FHDAR, 1948, 2.

⁸⁰ Glazier, J., Land the Uses of Tradition among the Mbeere of Kenya, Lanham, Maryland, 1985.Google Scholar

⁸¹ KNA Central Province Annual Report, 1947, 22. Also, FHDAR, 1944, 8–9; 1950, 26.

⁸² Throup, , op. cit., 9.Google Scholar

⁸³ Chanock refers to customary law as being “frozen” through the colonial project. A Law Panel was set up in Murang'a in 1949, the objective being to “record” customary laws and “guide” their development. Morris, H.F. and Read, J.S., Indirect Rule and the Search for Justice. Essays in East African Legal History, Oxford, 1972, 205) point out that although the intention was not to codify customary law, the Law Panel did move in this direction. It did endeavour to discover “the correct version” of an offence and its punishment and to produce “a standardized law” (KNA FHDAR, 1950, 3, 8). Their main achievement was to limit the circumstances under which land redemption was allowed, agreeing in 1950 that no cases which concerned transactions prior to the famine of 1898 would be allowed, a decision which confirmed the LNC attempt to do this in 1949. The events of October 1952 overtook deliberations and no codification took place.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Okoth-Ogendo, op. cit., 63, 508.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ KNA FHDAR, 1929, 9. Supreme Court No. 68/E/29 of 14/9/29.

⁸⁶ KNA FHDAR, 1929, 10.

⁸⁷ KNA FHDAR, 1929, 9–10.

⁸⁸ Chanock, , op. cit., 235–236.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Mackenzie, Strategies of Silence, ch. 6. Both activities provided women with a means to control resources in the face of growing polarization in economic relations and in the face of growing intra-household struggle over labour and its product.

⁹⁰ A female husband here is what , O'Brien (“Female husbands in Southern Bantu societies”, in Schlegel, A. (ed.), Sexual Stratification: a Cross–Cultural View, New York, 1977, 109–126)Google Scholar refers to “surrogate” female husband, acting as a male kinsman in providing heirs. The position is contrasted with that of an “autonomous” female husband.

⁹¹ For a fuller discussion of WG's story, see Mackenzie, F., “Un-customary laws: issues for research into land rights, Kenya”, in Yngstrom, I., Jeffrey, P., King, K. and Toulmin, C. (eds.), Gender and Environment in Africa: Perspectives in the Politics of Environmental Sustainability, Centre of African Studies, University of Edinburgh, 1994.Google Scholar

⁹² Leakey, L.S.B., The Southern Kikiyu before 1903 (3 vols.) London, 1977, 800–801.Google Scholar

⁹³ Kershaw, , op. cit., 293–294.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Scott, , op. cit., xvii.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Fisher (187) conducted field work in both Kiambu and Murang'a. Her comment that “many women” bought gardens needs qualification in the light of evidence collected later (see Mackenzie).