The Court of Appeal has brought to an end a long-running land dispute in Nairobi’s Eastleigh Land after confirming that Idow Trading Company Limited is the lawful owner of a contested parcel of land and dismissing an appeal filed by businessman Osman Ali Mohammed.
In a judgment delivered on June 12, 2026, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Daniel Kiio Musinga, Mumbi Ngugi and George Vincent Odunga upheld an earlier decision of the Environment and Land Court, finding that Mohammed had no legal ownership rights over the property despite occupying it for more than two decades. The court also sustained orders requiring Mohammed to vacate the land and pay KSh8 million in general damages for trespass. Additionally, the judges directed that KSh4 million that had been deposited in a joint interest-earning account during the litigation be released to Idow Trading’s advocates as part of the satisfaction of the court decree.
The dispute dates back to 2008 when Idow Trading instituted proceedings against Mohammed, another occupant identified as Mohammed Jimale, and the former City Council of Nairobi. The company claimed that it had been lawfully allocated the property in September 1998 and had completed all the necessary procedures required to secure ownership.
According to evidence presented in court, the company paid the applicable allotment fees, obtained approvals from the relevant authorities and was subsequently issued with a registered lease and deed plan. It argued that the defendants had unlawfully entered the land around the year 2000, subdivided portions of it, erected temporary structures and operated a motor vehicle garage without authorization. Mohammed contested those claims, insisting that his occupation of the property was lawful. He told the court that he had obtained a Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) from the City Council of Nairobi in 1997 and had continued paying the required fees and rent. He further maintained that steps had been taken by city officials to process a lease in his favour.
The businessman also questioned the validity of Idow Trading’s allocation, alleging that the company benefited from irregular dealings and political influence within the former local authority. The City Council supported Mohammed’s position and argued that he was the rightful allottee of the land.
However, the Environment and Land Court ultimately ruled in favour of Idow Trading after considering documentary evidence presented by the company. Its director, Ibrahim Adan Issack, testified that the firm held a valid registered title and produced records showing the allocation process, payment receipts, a beacon certificate and the registered lease.
One of the key issues raised before the Court of Appeal related to the conduct of the trial proceedings. Mohammed argued that he had been denied a fair hearing after the trial court refused to adjourn the matter in June 2023. The adjournment request had been made by counsel acting for the former City Council, who informed the court that he was scheduled to appear before the Court of Appeal in another matter. The trial judge declined the application, noting that the case had already been pending for approximately 15 years and that previous adjournments had been granted.
As a result, Mohammed’s legal team did not proceed with the cross-examination of Idow Trading’s witness. The defence case was later closed, and an application seeking to reopen the proceedings was dismissed. Before the appellate court, Mohammed contended that the refusal to postpone the hearing violated his constitutional right to be heard and unfairly prejudiced his case.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument, holding that the trial judge had properly exercised judicial discretion. The judges observed that while parties are entitled to a fair hearing, that right should not be used to unnecessarily delay the conclusion of cases.
The court pointed out that Mohammed had legal representation and had been afforded an opportunity to challenge the evidence presented against him but failed to utilize it. The judges further noted that the trial court had considered relevant factors, including the age of the dispute and the health condition of the witness, who had been described as elderly and unwell.
The judges dismissed allegations of fraud against Idow Trading, noting that fraud had neither been specifically pleaded nor proved to the required legal standard. They also upheld the KSh8 million damages award, citing Mohammed’s prolonged occupation of the land and his continued use of the property for commercial purposes despite court orders directing him to vacate.
With the appeal dismissed in its entirety, the judgment effectively ends an 18-year legal battle and clears the way for Idow Trading Company Limited to take full possession of the Eastleigh Land Property.
