Three men have moved to court over the land left behind by a businessman who died seven years ago.
The fight for the ownership of prime beach property in Msambweni, Kwale County, has intensified with the filing of a fresh suit as three men lay claim over the land left behind by a businessman who died seven years ago.
Mohammed Ruwa Maridadi, Anthony Michael Mwanzia and Ahmed Ouma Randa filed a fresh suit before the Environment and Land court in Kwale, three months after withdrawing a similar matter.
The three are claiming a 53-acres parcel of land left behind by Pritam Singh Panesar, who died on July 28, 2019.
The three moved to court in July 2021 and sought orders to serve Mr Panesar through substitute advertisement in the local dailies.
After hearing the case, Justice Addraya Edda Dena ruled in their favour on April 21, 2021, and directed the Kwale land office to register the land in their names. The court said they had proved ownership of the land through adverse possession.
As the land dispute was progressing, a succession case had been filed early in court where the High Court confirmed Grant of Probate of the written Will of late Panesar on July 17, 2019. The businessman had been survived by two daughters – Tanmeer Kaur Panesar and Jasmeet Kaur Panesar. Lawyer Guy Spencer Elms and businessman Nilesh Kumar Shah were listed as executors of the Will of the estate.
Following the discovery of the new development, the two executors moved to court, through the law firm of Litoro and Omwebu Advocates, and successfully quashed the decree in a decision issued on February 6, 2023.
“Based on the foregoing it is my finding that the suit herein commenced by way of Originating Summons by Mohammed Ruwa Maridadi, Anthony Michael Mwanzia Mulwa and Ahmed Ouma Randa against Pritam Singh Panesar was a nullity ab initio. The judgment herein therefore must collapse with the suit and for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby set aside,” said the judge.
After the decision reversing the judgment was made, the three individuals moved back to court and named the executors of the estate as respondents, claiming to have acquired the land through adverse possession. The executors opposed the case, stating that the three have never and are not in the land as they allege.
Mr Ruwa had sworn an affidavit saying he was brought up on the property.
But before the case was heard, the three withdrew the matter on April 17, 2024. The application was allowed by the court on May 16, 2024. The three were, however, ordered to pay the costs of the case.
In a fresh case, the three returned to court and filed a third case in April 2025 and this time, armed with a forensic report from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), they are claiming that the executors forged the will of the late businessman.
On July 30, the court directed them to serve the court documents on the executors, who will file their replies within 14 days.
The matter will be mentioned on September 30 to confirm whether parties have filed their submissions and get a ruling date.
Following the developments, the daughters of the late businessman and the executors have also written to the DCI about the forensic report.
“We are instructed that neither the Executors of the estate of Pritam Panesar nor our clients herein, who are the daughters of the deceased and who attended the High Court probate proceedings and confirmed the above written Will, have ever been contacted or interviewed by the DCI on the claims of forgery of the Will,” states lawyer Oscar Litoro’s letter to DCI boss Mohamed Amin.
Meanwhile, I&M Bank Limited confirmed in a statement that it was one of the largest creditors of the estate and that Mr Elms and Shah are the duly appointed executors of the estate.
The lender said it holds an informal charge over the Msambweni property, which was owned by Mr Panesar.
The bank said Mr Panesar, in a letter on August 13, 2018, requested the lender to hold the title and confirmed that the bank was entitled to the proceeds once the property was sold.
In November 2019, the lender said it instructed an auctioneer to sell the property but the auction was not successful.
The lender further revealed that the property was in the process of being sold when unknown persons interfered with the plans.
