A judge has dismissed an application seeking the review of an order blocking a firm accused of trespassing onto a 53-acre parcel of land at Garden Estate in Nairobi.
Justice Edward Wabwoto declined to review his earlier order issued on November 22, as sought by Meron Limited, stating that the firm had not provided any new information that was not available to the court when he issued the orders.
The judge said the issue the firm raised could be considered during the hearing of the case on April 6.
“From the pleadings and information availed by the parties to this court, it now appears that the first defendant (Meron Limited) is trying to litigate over the issue of ownership of the suit property through interlocutory applications,” said the judge.
Meron Ltd, accused of trespassing, is fighting over the ownership of the land with Langton Investments Limited, which is the registered owner.
Evidence tabled in court showed that Langton Investments Ltd purchased the land from trustees of the Kohlenberg Foundation, the initial owners of the land. It was earlier earmarked for the establishment of a school but the plan was dropped and the foundation sold the land to Langton Investments on March 6, 1998.
The new owners later applied to change the use of the land from educational to residential and they surrendered the original grant to the Ministry of Lands.
In 2020, Langton Investments Ltd said it discovered through a search that its Business Registration Services (BRS) had been fraudulently interfered with by unknown persons and its directors changed without their knowledge or consent.
Three years later, they were informed by a neighbour that the property was being subdivided and offered for sale. It had been divided into six parcels.
Langton Investments later filed a complaint with the Registrar of Titles and changes that had been made in the land records, regarding the contested parcels, were revoked.
On November 22 last year, Justice Wabwoto issued an injunction order restraining Meron Ltd from entering, selling or transferring the property, pending the determination of the case.
Meron Ltd later moved to court seeking a review of the order arguing that the court was not informed that they were in actual possession of the land.
The company said its workers have been occupying the land while growing crops and tree seedlings for sale and that it had employed farmhands and other people who earned their income from the said farming activities.
The court was informed that the workers were in a precarious position as they were staring at eviction from the property, putting their economic activities and farming interests in serious jeopardy.
The court rejected the application and directed the case to be mentioned on February 6, to confirm whether parties have put in their papers, ready for the hearing.
