Ex-Gatundu North MP barred from accessing 17-acre land in Thika
The High Court has barred former Gatundu North MP Patrick Kariuki Muiruri from accessing a 17-acre parcel of land in Thika, which is the subject of a protracted legal battle.
Thika Environment and Land Court judge Lucy Gacheru issued an injunction restraining Muiruri, his agents or workers from developing, leasing, transferring or dealing in any way with the property LR No. 4953/2414, located at Kiganjo within Thika municipality.
Court documents indicate that Muiruri, through his company, Thika Dairies Ltd, sold the land to Mapema Holdings, owned by Thika businessman Victor Maina on March 10, 2008, for Sh9 million and a sale agreement and transfer signed between the parties.
The suit filed by Maina, the proprietor of Mathai’s Supermarkets names Muiruri, his company, his son Sebastian Muiruri, the Chief Land Registrar and the Attorney General as defendants.
Applicant had submitted that the case against the defendants is that of fraudulent, illegal and unlawful cancellation of the transfer and title of the suit property after he had been issued with an original certificate of title, eight years after the transfer.
“On October 4, 2016, the Chief Land Registrar, working in cahoots with first, second and third defendants fraudulently, illegally and without any colour of right cancelled the transfer of the suit property to the plaintiff/applicant,” the Judge wrote in her 24-page ruling.
“Subsequently, the first defendant misrepresented to the Land Registrar that the original title of the suit property was lost and caused the same to be advertised in the Kenya Gazette No. 4031 of July 4, 2018.
The Chief Registrar without exercising due diligence, issued the first defendant with a provisional certificate yet they were all well aware that the original one was with the applicant,” read the ruling in which Maina had informed the court that he was a bona fide purchaser who acquired an indefeasible land title.
However, Muiruri had opposed the application, maintaining that the suit was based on “wild allegations and admission of criminal ventures” and that the purported transfer of the suit property was a forgery.
It was the former legislator’s contention that the sale of the property to the businessman did not materialise, as he did not pay in full the requisite amount and that in an attempt to swindle him (Muiruri), the applicant’s advocate forged documents to effect a transfer.
“Having carefully considered the available evidence, the court finds and holds that the plaintiff’s application is merited and allows the same entirely in terms of prayers,” she ruled.