Residents join Machakos land suit against Nairobi billionaire

What you need to know:

Mr Maina argues that there was no public road adjacent or running through his property, adding that in July 2017, the contractor illegally created the road through his land.
According to the group, the road was public based on the physical plan.

The Environment and Land Court has allowed Sabaki residents in Mlolongo to join a property dispute between Nairobi-based reclusive billionaire Mike Maina Kamau and Machakos County government.

The dispute that started in 2017 involves upgrading to bitumen standards of a public road, which Mr Maina is opposing because it passes through his land.

While allowing the residents’ request to participate in the case, Justice Oscar Angote said being the people who will use the disputed road they are indeed closely related to the lawsuit filed by Mr Maina.

He directed the residents through their officials in a lobby group known as Sabaki Residents Association to file their defence within 21 days.

“It is trite that for a party to be so enjoined, his presence must be necessary in determining the matter. Hence, the applicant has to show that he has a stake in the proceedings and his presence will help determine the issues at hand,” the court stated when allowing the application.

Mr Maina said he is the registered proprietor of the land.

He states that in July 2017, he learnt that the county had instructed a contractor, Na-Yomie Construction Ltd, to upgrade the road known as Southpark Estate-Mulinge Phase III Road to bitumen standard.

He said the construction of the said road traverses through his land.

Mr Maina argues that there was no public road adjacent or running through his property, adding that in July 2017, the contractor illegally created the road through his land.

According to the group, the road was public based on the physical plan.

The lobby group added that the Director of Physical Planning at the Ministry of Land and Housing approved the road on May 12, 1992, and that the right of an individual cannot supersede that of the public.

“The plaintiff has caused the public road to remain unconstructed and without street lighting thereby resulting in numerous cases of carjacking as well as robbery with violence being visited on the residents of the area,” its chairman told the court.