Agricultural firm Kakuzi PLC is in court seeking orders for the eviction of families living on its land in Maragua Constituency, Murang’a County, amid claims that it had promised to surrender part of the plantation for the resettlement of the squatters.
The company wants the court to order the 25 families to vacate the land and stop trespassing on the property. The Nairobi Stock Exchange-listed firm claims that it risks losing the property to the squatters, and it would suffer a loss.
“There also exists a grave risk that the entire suit property may be overrun by the invaders, the 1st to 25th defendants, resulting in substantial financial losses, disruption of business, loss of employment, and a complete paralysis of the company,” says its lawyer, Esther Kinyenje Opiyo.
If the squatters fail to vacate willingly, the company wants the officer commanding Makuyu police station to ensure enforcement of the proposed court orders by driving them out of the property forcefully.
In an application filed at the Environment and Lands Court in Murang’a, lawyer Opiyo says the police have not been able to prevent the alleged invasion and occupation of land. This prompted the company to seek the court’s intervention to protect its rights to own property.
She cautioned that in the absence of injunctive orders stopping the alleged trespass, the effect would be that the sanctity of a title deed under Article 40(1) of the Constitution may no longer be guaranteed “as a trespasser can at a whim invade property”.
“The consequences are far-reaching and dire. Lending institutions will become reluctant to allow security against property titles, and consequently, economic activity in Kenya will be significantly diminished. It is therefore critical that property rights are safeguarded by the courts,” says the lawyer.
Kakuzi sued after the squatters moved into the contested land registered as L.R 11674 last month and constructed housing structures with the intention of settling there.
Court papers show that this followed demonstrations held on July 24, 2025, led by area MP Mary Wamaua at the company’s Head Office, where the squatters were protesting that the firm had not allocated them land as promised in 2010 and 2017.
The company claims that on the said date, the squatters’ surveyor trespassed on the plantation and surveyed the contested portion, following which the families invaded the property, burnt grass, cleared bushes, and started constructing houses. This publication could not independently confirm the reported damage, though Kakuzi has furnished the court with photographs of the incident.
“The 1st to 25th defendants (squatters), their agents/representatives/workers are in breach of Section 3(1) of the Trespass Act as they have invaded the Plaintiff's land without the Plaintiff's consent. The invasion of the suit property has resulted in the Plaintiff's constitutional right to quiet possession and right to property under Article 40(1) of the Constitution being breached,” says the company’s lawyer Ms Opiyo.
She added that Kakuzi was “apprehensive that it will lose the suit property thereby incurring irreparable harm, loss and damage”.
The heart of the dispute is the implementation of two Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) agreements, where the company is reported to have promised to resettle 35 families of the squatters on a portion of its land. However, it resettled 10 in 2018, leaving the others who are now agitating for resettlement.
The MoU, which is part of the court documents, shows that the company had allowed the community to occupy a portion of 10 acres, though the title of the said area was to remain with Kakuzi. It shows that the land parcel was to be partitioned into 20 plots of half an acre each at an annual rate of Sh100 per quarter acre.
The document further shows that the occupants were to build one residential house only per family at such a place as Kakuzi would, in its sole discretion, determine and use building materials and specifications approved in advance by Kakuzi.
But Ms Opiyo says the matter is subject to an active legal dispute in the Thika Chief Magistrate's court and that the squatters invaded a portion different from the one they were claiming under the said MoU.
“The current trespass claim is not related to the expired Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated May 11, 2010, as the area now invaded is outside of the said MoU. The new land invasion is outside of the area under the 2010 and January 16, 2017 MoUs, which is the subject of a civil suit in Thika Chief Magistrate's court,” argues the lawyer.
The company’s legal officer, Janet Kabaya, in an affidavit, says allowing the squatters to continue with the alleged trespass would affect business continuity and investor confidence.
To demonstrate why the company deserves the court orders, they have attached photos of the alleged trespass activities, a map of the land, and a police Occurrence Book number reporting the incident at Makuyu police station.
The application is scheduled for a hearing on Thursday by Justice Maxwell Gacheru, where the court is expected to hear both sides of the dispute. The squatters are expected to file their response to the claims.
