Court nullifies sale of Ruiru land, cites fraud in transfer


The High Court has allowed a State agency to seize 12 vehicles suspected to be proceeds of crime. PHOTO | SHUTTERSTOCK

The Environment and Land Court at Thika has nullified the fraudulent sale of a two-acre land by Mwalimu Farm Investment Company Limited.

Justice Kemei ruled that the claimant, Samuel Muchai, had proved that he was the rightful owner of the Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 3/370 disputed land.

“I have carefully analysed all the documents, payment receipts for the land, survey fees, stamp duty, ballot card, and the same leave no doubt in the mind of the Court that the Plaintiff was a member of the Mwalimu Farm Investment Company Limited,” the judge said.

“… the Plaintiff paid for the land, stamp duty and survey fees among other services; the Plaintiff balloted for plot No 1741 and that plot No 1741 is parcel No 370.”

Evidence presented by Mr Muchai was that he was a teacher and a member of Mwalimu Farm Investment Company. He added that in 1983 the company came up with a scheme that would enable its members to buy property known as Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 3.

The claimant was allocated a two-acre land and was asked to wait for the processing of the title deed. The land cost Sh900 per acre.

However, after following up for a long time, a copy of a register for the property revealed that the title deed had been fraudulently released to Bernard Karema, who is the second defendant in the case who had in turn sold the land to Edwin Githiaga, the third defendant in the case.

Mr Githiaga was represented by his mother as he had relocated to the United States.

She failed to produce the agreement of sale or the transfer of land and acknowledged that her son was not a teacher or a member of Mwalimu Farm Investment Company.

The fourth defendant, who was the Land Registrar in Thika claimed that the documents showing the transfer of property from the government to Mr Macharia and then to Mr Githiaga were missing from the land registry in Ruiru and Thika.

The court held that Mr Githiaga failed to produce documents proving how he acquired the Ruiru land.

[email protected]