The Environment and Land Court has directed parties involved in four separate legal battles over the Sh100 billion Paradise Lost estate to exchange court documents to establish whether the cases concern the same parcel of land.
The directive was issued by Justice Yuvinaris Angima after lawyers representing the different parties failed to agree on whether the lawsuits involve identical land boundaries, beacons and title documents. The judge said exchanging pleadings would help the court determine whether the matters should be consolidated, heard together or proceed independently.
The four cases include a suit filed by Margaret Nyokabi against Saniel Mukiri and eight others, a 17-year-old dispute initiated by the Mbari ya Mbogo clan against the executors of Mary Warurii Gikunju’s estate, a petition by Esther Njeri Gikunju against the National Land Commission and 11 others, and a fraud suit filed by Ndunde Investments Limited against several private entities and government land agencies.
At the centre of the dispute is a 933-acre property near Thindigua, which the Mbari ya Mbogo clan claims is ancestral land taken over by British settlers decades ago. Represented by lawyer Harrison Kinyanjui, the clan told the court that its predecessor, Mbogo Wainaina, acquired the property from the Ndorobo community around 1900 in exchange for 2,000 goats.
According to the clan, British settlers later occupied the land in the 1950s and used it for coffee farming. Before leaving, they allegedly handed its management to five individuals, among them Samuel Githegi, who was then associated with the coffee plantation union. However, the clan’s ownership claims have been challenged by several parties, including Kasarini Farmers Co-operative Society, Kasarini Ancestral Families Group and the administrators of Mary Gikunju’s estate.
In their responses, the respondents have asked the court to dismiss the clan’s case at the preliminary stage and award them costs.
Daniel Mukiri argued that the proceedings are legally time-barred and constitute an abuse of court process. He maintained that the issues being raised had already been extinguished through an earlier case filed in 2009, which subsequently abated, as well as another claim that was dismissed by the National Land Commission.
Separately, Ndunde Investments Limited has filed a commercial dispute alleging that its property interests were undermined through fraudulent land transactions.
The company was established in 1986 by the late businessman Mbugua Mwangi and is currently owned by his six children following the deaths of both Mwangi and his wife, Christine Mithiri. Through lawyers Kevin Mogeni and Duncan Okatch, the company told the court that it had sought government approval between 2013 and 2016 to consolidate several agricultural land titles and convert the property into residential developments.
However, the company alleges that before the process of issuing new titles was completed, individuals fraudulently created an alternative title, L.R. No. 13316, allegedly relying on a forged presidential grant. Ndunde claims the disputed title was subsequently transferred through several entities and individuals, including Gianni Limited and Daniel Gichinga, before being registered under Pamat Enterprises.
The company further alleges that Pamat Enterprises’ directors began subdividing the disputed property into 281 plots, with alleged assistance from officials at the Kiambu County government and land registry. It also claims that records held by the Business Registration Service were manipulated to conceal changes in the ownership of companies involved in the transactions.
In an affidavit, Ndunde director Isaac Gichia told the court that individuals allegedly hired to interfere with the property had recently entered the estate and installed boundary markers without authorisation.
The company is seeking urgent injunctive orders to stop Pamat Enterprises, its associates and relevant county officials from accessing, transferring, subdividing or undertaking any transactions involving the disputed land pending the determination of the case.
