A Thika court has barred former Gatundu North MP Kariuki Muiruri from accessing a 17-acre land which is the subject of a protracted legal battle between him and a Kiambu-based tycoon, Viktah Maina popularly known as ‘Maathai’.
The name ‘Maathai’ is linked to his retail-chain Maathai Supermarket, which is a dominant and indigenous retailer in Mount Kenya.
Thika Environment and Land Court Justice L. Gacheru issued an injunction restraining Mr Muiruri, his agents or workers from developing, leasing, transferring or dealing in any way with the property LR No. 4953/2414, located at Kiganjo in Thika municipality, whose current value is Sh300 million, until the case is heard and determined.
Court documents indicate that Mr Muiruri, through his company Thika Dairies Ltd, sold the land to Mapema Holdings, owned by Mr Maina on March 10, 2008 for Sh9 million and a sale agreement and transfer signed between the parties.
“The application is supported by the affidavit of Viktah Maina Ngunjiri sworn on April 5, 2019 who averred that pursuant to clause 4 of the agreement, the plaintiff paid a deposit of Sh2 million to the 2nd respondent upon execution of sale agreement and the 1st defendant through the 2nd respondent deposited the original title to the parties advocate on execution of the said agreement and payment of deposit. Further that the balance of Sh7 million was paid to the 2nd defendant vide banker’s cheque on diverse dates as per terms of sale agreement,” ruled Justice Ms L. Gacheru.
After the full payment was done, the court was told that Mr Muiruri, working with rogue land officials at the Thika Land Registry, cancelled the transfer and title of the property and later claimed that the original title was lost and caused the same to be advertised in the Kenya Gazette No. 4031 of July 4, 2018.
The suit filed by Mr Maina, names Mr Muiruri, his company, his son Sebastian Muiruri, the Chief Land Registrar and the Attorney-General as the defendants.
However, Mr Muiruri had opposed the application, maintaining that the suit was based on "wild allegations and admission of criminal ventures" and that the purported transfer of the suit property was a forgery, a defence that the court dismissed insisting that he was aware and part of the fraudulent deal.
