A dispute over more than 79 acres of land in Kikambala, Kilifi County, has taken a dramatic turn, with a landowner alleging that threats involving firearms, intimidation and coercion were used to force him to surrender the prime property estimated to be over Sh700 million he had acquired through a court judgment.
The petition filed before the Malindi Environment and Land Court claims officers from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) threatened the landowner with physical harm, arrest, and torture unless he transferred his 79.3-acre parcel to Khalfani Ali Khalfani. It was filed by Simeon Jumvi Mwangala and the Centre for Litigation Trust.
According to court documents, Mr Mwangala was subsequently escorted under armed guard to a law firm, where a deed of gift was prepared on June 17, 2026. The property was registered in Khalfani’s name a week later.
Mr Mwangala is challenging the transfer, arguing that he never freely consented to surrender the land and that his signature and participation were obtained through coercion.
Mwangala says that his signature and participation were obtained through coercion.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
The dispute dates back to February 17, 2026, when Mr Mwangala says he reported suspected fraudulent dealings involving the property to the DCI regional offices in Mombasa. He alleges that an advocate had withheld court documents relating to a court case of 2024, in which he had secured ownership of the land through adverse possession.
He says investigators acknowledged his complaint and advised him to allow time for them to authenticate the court documents and examine the proceedings.
However, Mr Mwangala alleges that the matter took a different turn on June 17, 2026, when a DCI officer contacted him and suggested that people within the DCI could help him secure a title deed if he surrendered part of the land. When he went to the offices, he claims, he was instead accused of stealing the property from Mr Khalfani.
Mr Mwangala alleges that he was taken into a room where two men displayed firearms and threatened him with harm, arrest, and torture unless he agreed to transfer the entire parcel to Khalfani. He says he agreed because he feared for his safety.
He further claims that he was escorted under armed guard, alongside the officers and Khalfani, to a law firm where a deed of gift was prepared. The document purportedly recorded an earlier settlement and an agreement to transfer the property.
Mr Mwangala says he was registered as proprietor of the land on April 2, 2025, following the judgment in the 2024 case. An official search cited in the affidavit shows that the property was registered in Mr Khalfani’s name on June 24, 2026.
“I did not act voluntarily. I did not freely make a gift of my entire property to Khalfani," Mr Mwangala says in his affidavit, disputing the validity of any purported prior consent to the transfer.
The petition names Mr Khalfani, the two men Mr Mwangala identifies as involved in the alleged threats, an advocate, the DCI, the Registrar of Titles in Mombasa and the Attorney-General as respondents. Ms Angelline Adhiambo Omollo of Angelline Omollo and Associates Advocates, who represented Mwangala in the adverse possession suit, has been named in the new case as an interested party.
The petition alleges that investigative powers were used to facilitate a private land transfer instead of impartially pursuing his original complaint. The allegations have yet to be determined by the court.
Mr Mwangala is asking the court to declare that the alleged threats violated his constitutional rights to dignity, security and property, invalidate the deed of gift and cancel the registration in Mr Khalfani’s name.
He also wants the court to restore his registration as proprietor in accordance with the earlier judgment, order an independent investigation into the disputed transfer and permanently restrain dealings with the property. He is seeking general and constitutional damages against any respondents found responsible.
In his affidavit, Mr Mwangala warns that the land could be sold, subdivided, charged, or otherwise dealt with before the petition is heard, potentially frustrating any eventual orders.
The court has meanwhile issued interim orders barring dealings with the land, both on the ground and in the register, pending an inter partes hearing of the application.
In directions issued on October 19, the court declined to certify the application as urgent but ordered that it be served on the respondents, who have 14 days to file their responses.
The application is scheduled for an inter partes hearing on November 26, 2026. The interim order does not determine the ownership dispute or establish whether the alleged threats and coercion occurred.
