Time flies with great content! Renew in to keep enjoying all our premium content.
Prime
Mavoko residents fail bid to halt evictions by Portland Cement
East Africa Portland Cement Company. The Court of Appeal has rejected an application by a group of homeowners in Mavoko, Machakos County, who had sought to block the firm evicting them from parcels of land claimed by the cement firm.
The Court of Appeal has rejected an application by a group of homeowners in Mavoko, Machakos County, who had sought to block East Africa Portland Cement Company (EAPCC) from evicting them from parcels of land claimed by the cement firm.
The dispute centres on a contentious land regularisation process that residents claimed was not transparent.
The Court of Appeal judges dismissed the residents’ request for orders suspending execution of the High Court’s decision to allow the company and the homeowners to regularise the ownership process, including payment of the purchase price.
The company has been undertaking a land regularisation process in the area to formalise ownership of the plots occupied by the residents.
The process involves offering these occupants the opportunity to purchase the plots they currently occupy.
The residents, under the auspices of Mavoko Muundani Residents Association, wanted the Court of Appeal to halt the ruling of the Environment and Lands Court dated February 25, 2025, pending the determination of their appeal.
They applied for an order restraining the cement maker from evicting members of the association from their homes located in the disputed parcels of land, demolishing the homes, or interfering with their stay on the property.
However, the court found that the group failed to show that the intended appeal was arguable.
“We have considered the application, the affidavits on record and the submissions made and, based on the material placed before us, save for the general contention that the intended appeal is arguable and has chances of success, we are unable to find any arguable ground that faults the learned Judge’s exercise of discretion,” said the court.
In the ruling delivered by Justices Patrick Kiage, Weldon Korir, and George Odunga, the court added that the group failed to show that the High Court judge was wrong in rejecting their application.
EAPCC had opposed the application and called for its dismissal. The parcels of land are registered as L.R. 8784/144, L.R. No 8784/145, and L.R. No 8784/653
The residents, led by David Musau, James Kigera, Michael Wambua, Daniel Kimweli, and Boniface Mutinda, together with the association, argued that the ongoing regularization process was not transparent. The process started in October 2023.
“Cognizant of the fact that an opaque process would lead to disenfranchisement, loss of money and property, the applicants filed the suit before the trial court and an application under certificate of urgency accompanying the plaint. Currently, the respondents are dispossessing the members of the applicants of their properties and allocating the said plots to third parties,” their advocate stated in the court papers.
They added that the process of regularisation was preceded by public participation, but thereafter, the company acted contrary to the resolutions of the public participation exercise.
The dispute on the regularisation originated from a public notice issued by the company on October 17, 2023, informing the occupants of the land that the purchase price of the plots was Sh600,000 and that they were required to deposit Sh100,000 within 14 days.
They added that the company later issued the occupants with offer letters quoting amounts ranging from Sh775,000 to as much as Sh1,650,000.
EAPCC submitted that this was a case of a willing seller, willing buyer, and it had requested the occupants to either purchase the same at the current market price or vacate.
The residents’ case was that following engagements between the company and the occupants of the suit property, there were discussions on the pricing with the unit size being 40-by-80 plot. The proposal was that the same to go for Sh200,000 in light of the harsh economic times.
The presented price by the company during the publication participation exercise was Sh600,000, but the residents, through their local leaders requested for a reduction of the same to Sh400,000 payable over a period of five to 10 years.
However, the company proceeded to report in the annual report that they had resolved to sell the properties to occupants as first priority at Sh600,000, with Sh100,000 being a deposit payable in three months and the balance payable in three years.
The company later issued a public notice dated October 17, 2023, informing the occupants to begin the regularisation process and pay the Sh100,000 deposit within 14 days; failure to do so would result in the loss of their properties, and the same would be sold to the public.
“This action was so unconscionable and coercive as the directives were given at a time when the 1st Defendant/Respondent (EAPCC) was carrying out demolitions on adjacent pieces of land that they had reclaimed from its occupants,” they said.
The court heard that the occupants only proceeded to attempt to comply with the public notice out of fear of being evicted from their properties.
The court heard the offer letters issued in November 2023, the occupants were required to, upon accepting the terms, remit 20 per cent of the purchase price within ten days of acceptance. The balance would be payable within three months as opposed to the minimum three years that the company had initially reported.
