Kiambu firm seeks Sh17bn for part of Kayole, Umoja estates land


The company has sued the Attorney General and the National Land Commission. FILE PHOTO | NMG

Trustees of a land buying company started giving evidence on Monday in a case where they are seeking more than Sh17 billion from the government and individuals for a parcel of land on which part of Umoja and Kayole estates stand.

The company has sued the Attorney General and the National Land Commission.

Abdullahi Muiruri Muigai narrated how the government compulsorily acquired some 275 acres of the land belonging to Kiambu Dandora Farmers Company for urban development.

However, after acquiring the land, it was sold to private companies, individuals and politicians, civil servants and business people, negating the intention to acquire it for public use. He said the acquisition deprived them of the land.

Mr Muigai told Justice Samson Okongo that its members should be allowed to occupy the unallocated and undeveloped parts of sections and compensated for parts that are occupied.

The controversial parcel of land is between the railway line to the north, Kangundo Road to the south, the New Kenya Co-operative Creameries factory to the west and Coca-Cola to the east.

The trustees of the company including Mr Muigai, Raymond Waweru and Kariuki Njoro said in court documents that they contributed money in 1966 to purchase the land from Khan Nawaz Abbas and Mehdi Khan.

They paid the Khans for the 818 acres and obtained the title on April 8, 1970. The title deed has been in the possession of the successive trustees.

They were later embroiled in a land dispute with a rival company known as Dandora Housing Schemes Ltd but the case was referred to arbitration before the district officer, Makadara.

While the dispute was pending, the government offered to purchase from the trustees some 275 acres for Sh68,000, an offer which was declined. But the government opted to acquire it compulsorily and published a gazette notice for urban development.

They claim the notice did not specify which public body or public interest for which it was being acquired.