Muhuri Muchiri, former chairman of Embakasi Ranching (1976-2006).
It all started in 1983 when Embakasi Ranching Company Limited claimed it bought 300 acres in Kitengela for Sh2.1 million from Mr Mutunkei Kiponyi.
42 years later, the land that is now worth Sh2.5 billion is the subject of a protracted court case with the entry of new claimants from the Republic of North Korea.
A firm registered in Kenya with North Korean directors insists it bought the land in 2003 from Embakasi Ranching for Sh19.5 million.
But the family of Mr Kiponyi, who died in 2013, dispute their father ever sold the land to Embakasi Ranching, which in turn insists it is the rightful owner of the property.
In a twist, the two factions, however, unite to petition the court to revoke the ownership by the North Koreans of the land —Kajiado/Kitengela/7468 — that has since been registered under Oh-Dae (Kenya) Limited.
Queries
Strangely, the disputed land is registered under Embakasi Ranching and Oh-Dae (Kenya) Limited.
It is also unclear from court records whether Oh-Dae (Kenya) Limited is owned by two or three North Koreans.
This is because a CR12 from the company registry lists Wan Young Kim and Ho-Ik Park as the directors/shareholders with 10 and 990 ordinary shares, respectively.
A Wan Young Kim is also listed as a secretary with no shares, according to the CR12 filed in court on ownership of the company as of November 29, 2021.
The company was registered on August 3, 1999, with a nominal share capital of Sh100, 000 with 1,000 ordinary shares each valued at Sh100.
Caroline Jemutai Mutunkei, as the first plaintiff, and Naserian Mutunkei, as the second, both suing as the legal representatives and administrators of the estate of the late Mr Kiponyi, have asked the court to issue an order revoking the title deed for the land in the names of Oh-Dae (Kenya) Limited and Embakasi Ranching.
On March 27, 2025, Justice Maxwell Gicheru set May 13, 2025, as the date for the verdict on ownership of the property after hearing the parties in the case filed in 2021.
Embakasi Ranching (first), Oh-Dae Kenya limited (second), Registrar of Lands in Kajiado (third) and Surveyor of Lands (fourth) are named as the defendants.
According to court papers, Mr Muhuri Muchiri, who served as the chairman of Embakasi Ranching between 1976-2006, may have engineered the sale of 300 acres to the North Koreans for personal gain.
The court has heard in 2003 Mr Muchiri received a part payment of Sh1.95 million, being 10 percent of the total selling price of the property. Mr Muchiri died in 2006.
Muhuri Muchiri, chairman of Embakasi Ranching (1976-2006)
The North Koreans have identified a Mr Kiragu Koome as the individual who facilitated the transaction executed through a sale agreement on February 27, 2003.
“We were to pay Sh1,950,000 to the vendor upon execution of the agreement and balance was to be paid on completion date. We were dealing with Mr Kiragu Koome as a facilitator," Mr Park explained according to a document dated May 15, 2023.
But upon cross-examination by the lawyer for Embakasi Ranching, Mr Park could not explain why they were paying cash to an individual (Mr Muchiri) instead of depositing the money in the company’s bank account.
Another grand contention in the case is who pocketed the balance- Sh17.55 million- given the total selling price was Sh19.5 million.
Payments and contradictions
The North Koreans say they paid the cash to their advocate’s account in a bank that has since gone under--Daima.
"The agreed purchase price was Sh19,500,000. The same was fully paid by our said lawyers through an account held at Daima Bank Limited. We also had an account with the same bank. The bank has since gone down,” the North Koreans stated.
That statement, however, contradicted the earlier assertion by the North Koreans that they paid Mr Muchiri Sh1,950,000 in cash on February 27, 2003.
Also Read: Web of Kenya's oldest court cases
The court was also not furnished with evidence to show that Sh17.55 million was deposited in the bank account at Daima Bank.
Although the North Koreans said the bank had gone under, they did not demonstrate to the court efforts to contact the Receiver Manager appointed by the Central Bank of Kenya to provide bank statements concerning the purported payments.
The court was told the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) investigated the existence of account of No 001350005 at Daima Bank. The bank’s Liquidation Agent denied the existence of such an account.
“There is absolutely no evidence that the balance of the purchase price was ever paid as per the purported agreement. Further, no evidence was adduced to prove that the 1st defendant (Embakasi Ranching) was ever paid a sum of Sh19,500,000 by the 2nd defendant (Oh-Dae Kenya limited) as per the terms of the purported agreement. Moreover, the 2nd defendant did not produce any evidence that it paid any stamp duty to the land office as per the terms of the purported agreement and as is the procedure in transactions for the sale of land. This fact was also confirmed by the Land Registrar Kajiado,” court papers read.
Forgery claims
Embakasi Ranching has cited the 2006 Alberta Mae Gacii Vs Attorney General and four others' case to argue Oh-Dae Kenya Limited has no legal claim to the land.
In that case, Justice Elijah Onyancha stated: "Cursed should be the day when any crook in the streets... using forgery, deceit or any kind of fraud, would acquire a legal and valid title deceitfully snatched from a legal registered innocent proprietor.”
The judge added: "Indeed, cursed would be the day when such a crook would have the legal capability or competence to pass to a third party, innocent or otherwise, a land interest that he does not have even if it were for valuable consideration. For my part, I would want to think that such a time when this court would be called upon to defend such crooks, has not come and shall never come..."
But the North Koreans in their defence indicated they are investors-cum-developers who intend to construct a university and a research center on the disputed land.
Embakasi Ranching however dismissed the claim as "noble coated international land grab that the court is being invited to sanitize.”
The North Koreans have since been issued with a title deed dated April 14, 2023, for the contentious land ref: Kajiado/Kitengela/7464, a development that came even as the case was ongoing.
The Kiponyi petition
Enter the late Kiponyi’s family. According to their suit filed on December 16, 2021, neither Embakasi Ranching nor the North Koreans should claim ownership of the property.
Ms Jemutai wants the court to declare that LR no. Kajiado/Kitengela/7468 and Kajiado/Kitengela/551, which was initially known as Kajiado/Kitengela/183, measuring about 121.41 Ha, and any other subsequent subdivisions or mergers, belong to her father.
Ms Jemutai has sought an order compelling the Kajiado registrar of land to revoke the title deed in favour of either Oh-Dae or Embakasi Ranching.
She wants the court to order that the ownership of the land remains as was before the initial transaction dated June 10, 1983, that portended to surrender it to any party.
Also sought is a permanent injunction restraining Embakasi Ranching and the North Koreans from any activity in the suit property.
In its defence, Embakasi Ranching stated: "We invite the court to find that Mr Kiponyi sold us the land that now his sibling is seeking to dispossess us. Then the same land was fraudulently transferred from us and registered in the North Koreans' company."
But the company supports Ms Jemutai’s pleadings that the Kajiado land registrar cancels the title deed offered to the North Koreans.
Embakasi Ranching wants an order directed at the North Koreans demanding compensation for the loss of land ownership rights computed at the current market value together with interest thereon from the date the tussle rendered it unable to utilize the land.
But the North Koreans in the consolidated amendments dated November 6, 2023, sought a bonafide right to own the land.
They also want police stations, as they may apply, restrained from ever assisting in the enforcement of any orders that might be issued against its ownership of the land.
The North Koreans argue that an order will suffice to remove restrictions and or caveats or any encumbrance registered by any party over the land so that Kajiado land registrar and the survey departments can be compelled by law to "fix the boundaries of our land measuring 121.4 Hectares".
Issues at hand
As Justice Gicheru retires to write his judgement, the issues placed before him are distinct.
For instance, Embakasi Ranching wants a determination on how possible it is in Kenyan law to transfer, register and title land to a company fully owned by foreigners.
"From the outset we wish to submit that under the Kenyan law specifically the Article 65 of the Constitution, the North Koreans being here as a company wholly owned by non-citizens could not be granted consent to purchase free hold land," the compnay argues.
Article 65(3)(a) of the Constitution reads: "For purposes of this Article-(a) A body corporate shall be regarded as a citizen only if wholly owned by one or more citizens..."
The submissions also invoke Section 9 (1) (C) of the Land Control Act that provides: "In deciding whether to grant or refuse consent in respect of a controlled transaction, a land control board shall-
(c) refuse consent in any case in which the land or share is to be disposed of by way of sale, transfer, lease, exchange or partition to a person who is not- (i) a citizen of Kenya; or (ii) a private company or co-operative society all of whose members are citizens of Kenya".
On whether Mr Kiponyi had sold his land to Embakasi Ranching, documents have been filed dated January 25, 1983 detailing his application for subdivision of land parcel number Kajiado/Oloolotikoshi/Kitegela/22 into land parcel numbers Kajiado/Olooitikoshi/182 and Kajiado/Olooitikoshi/183.
The mutation further claimed that it was received and registered at the Kajiado lands registry on January 28, 1983.
"The late Kiponyi was to be registered as proprietor of land parcel numbers Kajiado/Olooitikoshi/182 measuring approximately 143.09 hectares which is 353.5 acres while Embakasi Ranching was to be registered as proprietor of Kajiado/Olooitikoshi/183 measuring about 121.4 hectares which is approximately 300 acres," court papers read.
The court heard that the records to support the 1983 subdivision of Mr Kiponyi’s land were not available "since in line with national government policy, government records are destroyed after a period of 10 years and that explains why the consents that were done in the 1980s as is the case here, are not available".
In her October 3, 2023 testimony, Ms Rosemary Wamuyu Mwangi, appearing as land registrar based at Kajiado land registry, said that "the suit land was lawfully transferred and there was no fraud surrounding the said transaction".
