Portland Cement wins long legal battle against squatters in Athi-River
A view of East Africa Portland Cement Company on January 14, 2012. The company has chopped up a 1,000-acre parcel of land into tiny portions in a bid to expedite its sale, targeting to raise Sh5 billion towards its work capital and debt repayment.
After a protracted court battle, East African Portland Cement PLC (EAPC PLC) has been declared the legal owner of a piece of land that has been occupied by a group of squatters for more than 10 years.
On October 9, Justice Annet Nyukuri of the Environment and Land Court in Machakos ruled that the plaintiff's case be dismissed and that the defendants be ordered to pay costs.
The prime land in question, located along Mombasa Road, south of Athi River township in Machakos County, measuring approximately 4,298 acres, has been at the centre of a dispute between the giant cement manufacturer and the squatters who started invading the land after EAPC ceased mining operations on the land about 10 years ago.
Through ELC Case No. 74 of 2014, consolidated with Petition No. 10 of 2018, officials of the Aimi Ma Lukenya Society had sued EAPC for a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction restraining the cement manufacturer from dealing with the land until the matter is fully heard and determined by the court.
According to court documents, the society had produced a fake title deed with entry number 7, claiming that the land was transferred to Aimi Ma Lukenya Society on May 20, 1980, when the society did not exist, as records at the Registrar of Societies show that the society was registered on September 25, 2014.
In her ruling, Justice Nyukuri said the plaintiff had failed to physically serve the amended pleadings on all the defendants within 21 days as ordered by the court on May 17, 2023, and warned the plaintiff that failure to do so would result in the case being struck out.
On October 9, 2023, the matter was referred to confirm whether the plaintiff had complied with the court's orders of May 17.
The court found that the plaintiff had been accommodated on various occasions in November 2022, March 2023 and May 2023 and that there was no reason why the plaintiff could not serve its own documents on the defendants as ordered.
