Maya Investments has revived its challenge to the ownership of prime land along Mombasa Road, contested by Mutuya Holdings Ltd, which is linked to the Kenyatta family.
An investment company has been allowed to challenge the ownership of a prime parcel of land being claimed by a firm linked to the Kenyatta family.
Maya Investments Ltd successfully resuscitated a case challenging the ownership of the land along Mombasa Road also contested by Mutuya Holdings Limited, a real estate firm associated with the family of the founding president.
At the end of 2014, Mutuya Holdings had net assets of Sh11.1 billion when Commercial Bank of Africa (CBA), which transitioned to NCBA Bank, invested Sh2.3 billion in the little-known property firm, as the lender sought to diversify its income streams.
In the court case, Maya Investments moved to the Environment and Land Court to challenge the title held by Mutuya Holdings, but the case was dismissed in November 2018 after a judge ruled that the matter was time-barred.
However, Maya Investment has now successfully appealed against the dismissal of its case and three judges of the Court of Appeal have ruled that the controversy regarding the issue as to who has a valid title, can only be resolved by allowing the matter to go to full hearing where the parties will adduce evidence.
“In our considered view, the learned judge erred when he arrived at the conclusion that the appellant’s (Maya Investments) suit was entirely hinged on a claim for recovery of land,” said justices Daniel Musinga, Fatuma Sichale and Fred Ochieng
The Court Appeal judges noted that the High Court judge relied on a letter of August 15, 1996 from the commissioner of lands purportedly revoking Maya’s title, in spite of another letter of August 24, 2011, again from the land commissioner confirming the property was duly registered in Maya’s name.
From the pleadings on record, according to the appeal judges, it was evident that Maya Investments’ suit was based on a claim for continuous trespass by Mutuya Holdings where it had even sought punitive and exemplary damages.
The Environment and Land court judge was faulted for not considering that there were other prayers sought by Maya Investments, including a declaration that the firm was the lawfully registered owner of the property.
The appeal judges pointed out that the grant held by Maya Investments had initially been allotted and registered in the name of Matuya Holdings on July 29, 1993.
The court added that on January 26, 1996, Maya Investments was allotted the same property but was subsequently nullified by the then commissioner of lands on August 15, 1996.
But in a strange twist of events, another letter dated August 24, 2011, the commissioner of lands confirmed that the property was duly registered in favour of Maya Investments.
“In light of these contests as to which party held a valid title, it would only be fair to have the parties have their day in court and adduce evidence to advance their respective positions. Clearly this was a deserving case that calls for a full hearing,” said the judges.
Maya Investments had claimed that it was granted lease for 99 years from January 1996 and had been paying all the land rent and rates.
However, Mutuya Holdings allegedly trespassed onto the property in September 2010 and started construction.
Aggrieved, Maya Investments moved to court seeking eviction of the firm linked to the Kenyattas and an order to demolish temporary and permanent structures on the contested land.
However, Justice Elijah Obaga allowed an application by Mutuya Holdings for the case to be struck out.
He said if Maya Investments wished to file a case for recovery of the property, the firm had 12 years within which to initiate the process.
The judge stated that the first attempt to recover the property was made in 2010, by which time 12 years had already lapsed.
In the appeal, Maya Investments censured the judge for holding that the title could be revoked, yet it had established the legality of acquisition.
Again, the firm told the appeal judges that Mutuya Holdings' act of encroaching on the property amounted to a continuing trespass and was not time barred.
Mutuya Holdings maintained that the case was time barred as the cause of action began to run in 1996 when Maya Investments was informed by chief registrar of titles of a competing claim over the property.
