Babu Owino threatens to take Njiru land fight to Supreme Court
View of some of the properties developed on part of the land owned by the family of the late city politician Gerrishon Kirima.
Embakasi East MP Babu Owino has threatened to appeal to the High Court against the Environment and Land Court ruling on 1000 acres of land in Njiru, Nairobi.
Addressing the press at Parliament House on Tuesday, the MP faulted Justice Samson Okong'o's decision to declare the family of former Starehe MP Gerishon as the rightful owners of the disputed land.
The court also gave the squatters occupying the land until December 31 to hand over possession of the property to Kirima's estate and vacate, failing which they will be evicted.
Squatters occupying the land have until December 31 to vacate.
According to the MP, Okong'o erred in his ruling by arguing that the residents of Embakasi were the rightful owners because they had reached the legal threshold for land ownership.
He argued that the Embakasi residents had occupied the land for 12 years and 10 months from the date of Kirima's death on 10 December 2010, making them "more than qualified to occupy the land by adverse possession".
"In the judgement delivered yesterday, the judge erred in saying that this land does not belong to Embakasi East. As it stands, we will appeal against this decision. Because this is a matter of public interest, it must go to the Supreme Court and this piece of land must be given to my people through adverse possession."
The lawmaker explained that there are three ways in which a person can legally acquire ownership of land.
"Firstly, a person must occupy the land they want to own and in this case these people have been living on that land. Secondly, a person must have lived on that land for at least 12 years, which means for a period of 2 or more years. These people, who are my people, have even crossed the threshold required to occupy the land and become legal owners by adverse possession," Babu said.
The third way, the legislator explained, was that "the entry into the land must not have been consented to in the first place. At the time of the death of the owner, Kirima, no consent had been given.
Furthermore, "the land in question should not be public land, and in this case it is private land allegedly belonging to Kirima.
Other requirements include that 'the occupation must be open and notorious' and finally, 'there must be knowledge of the occupation and in this case my people have been and continue to be in occupation with the knowledge of the owner'.
The lawmaker said they would pursue the alternative route of negotiations to ensure that Kirima's family agrees to negotiate with Embakasi residents.
"If they refuse, through adverse possession, these 1000 plots of land clearly belong to the people of Embakasi East Constituency."
Referring to the recently completed demolitions in Mavoko, Machakos County, the MP accused President William Ruto of allowing demolitions even after launching the Affordable Housing Programme to ensure that every Kenyan owns a house.
"The President has been so active on the issue of affordable housing and that he wants every Kenyan citizen to have a house and that he has moved and practically started the construction of the said houses. Why then should we as a government encourage the demolition of houses as was recently witnessed in Mavoko?"
"Should this happen in Embakasi constituency, I can assure you that if my people lose their houses, because they will have lost everything, we will fight back. I can call on my people in Embakasi not to sit back and watch their property being destroyed because they are the rightful owners of the said land by virtue of adverse possession".
"I want to advise this government that in the spirit of togetherness, live and let live, eat and let eat, let my people be."
On Monday, Mr Kirima's family scored a major victory in a land dispute that has been in court for over two decades, since 2003, between the family and squatters.
In a case dismissed by the Land and Environment Court, three groups of squatters claimed to be the rightful owners of the 1,000-acre parcel of land by adverse possession, arguing that they had occupied it continuously for 12 years.
