In this case the individual is not quite a "random individual" though, but instead they're someone who is very specifically related to the given case due to their inheritance. Still I understand the point. Personally I think any return of such objects is a matter of good will and I don't believe anyone has a natural right to any object they have never themselves owned. If the current owner is convinced that they cannot keep the item in good faith, let them return it, but otherwise it will remain their property.Actually, at the moment precisely this is happening. Aparently Barbados is considering suing Richard Drax for reparations because his family got wealthy shipping slaves to Barbados.
The same is happening in other places and on other levels as well. And it's a tough thing to decide on. A more recent example is art stolen in WW2. It's stolen from someone, and the descendants of those people want it back. However, in many cases the art has simply been sold and is now in different hands. At what point do you decide someone doesn't have a claim to something anymore? After all, sure the descendants have a right to get the stolen property of their (grand)parents back. On the other hand, if my grandfather bought something (in good faith) 40 years ago, and I've now inhereted it, where did I go wrong? And where do you draw the line?