Hello

Your subscription is almost coming to an end. Don’t miss out on the great content on Nation.Africa

Ready to continue your informative journey with us?

Hello

Your premium access has ended, but the best of Nation.Africa is still within reach. Renew now to unlock exclusive stories and in-depth features.

Reclaim your full access. Click below to renew.

Judiciary wades into Lavington land-grab saga as DCI digs in

Screenshots: The property dispute hit the headlines last weekend after a video surfaced online showing police arresting an elderly man at his home in Lavington, Nairobi.

Photo credit: courtesy

The judiciary has clarified that it has not issued any orders or directions in the Lavington land dispute pitting Mr Munir Ahmed Chowdhary against Mr Mahesh Kumar, where both parties are accusing each other of land grabbing.

Instead, the court said it had set the mention date for the application filed by Mr Kumar and Ms Anita Bhatti for September 18 this year.

“Consequently, no court orders have been issued with respect to the properties in question whatsoever. We hope this statement aids the public in verifying the emerging media reports, especially to the extent that touches on the Judicial process,” the Judiciary said in a statement.

The property dispute hit the headlines last weekend after a video surfaced online showing police arresting an elderly man at his home in Lavington, Nairobi.

Kileleshwa County Assembly member Robert Alai and rights activist Boniface Mwangi, who recorded one of the viral videos, condemned the police accusing them of unlawfully evicting Mr Kumar from his home on the orders of Mr Ahmed.

It was a strategy that stoked the anger of Kenyans online, who immediately went for the jugular, accusing the police of brutalising the elderly man and his family.

Adverse possession

To protect himself and his family from imminent eviction, Mr Kumar rushed to court to seek an injunction against Mr Ahmed.

Mr Kumar wanted the court to declare that they, the applicants, had jointly acquired title and ownership of the land, LR No. 209/7771/2, by adverse possession.

He also wanted the court to make an order restraining Mr Ahmed and his associates from “restraining, alienating, dealing with, disposing of, trespassing upon and/or in any other way interfering with his use of the land, occupation and possession of all that land”.

After the arrest of Mr Kumar by DCI detectives, unknown people were seen erecting a temporary wall to subdivide the property.

The Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), in a statement issued on Sunday night, has also defended itself against claims of being misused by Mr Ahmed.

DCI says its investigations show that Mr Ahmed subdivided the parcel in 1987 and sold a portion of it, LR No, 2019/7771/1, to Mr Kumar in 1987. He retained the other portion and then left Kenya for the UK.

However, Mr Ahmed said he was shocked to find that Mr Kumar had taken over the entire property when he returned to the country earlier this year.

The DCI said the public had been misled by the video that went viral online showing detectives arresting the elderly man at the Lavington property.

Current occupants

Clarifying what happened, the DCI said the matter began in February when Mr Ahmed, who currently lives in the UK, reported to them that the current occupants, Mahesh Kumar Bhatti and Anita Bhatti, were laying claim to his property.

The DCI says Mr Ahmed proved to them that he had bought the land in 1977 and then, after a decade, had sold part of it to Mr Kumar and Ms Anita and retained the other part.

Although he was initially able to visit the property on several occasions, Mr Ahmed told the DCI that he had been denied access since February 24, 2023, prompting him to report the matter to the DCI.

To date, Mr Kumar has not provided any ownership documents relating to the land dispute, the DCI said.

“The Director of Public Prosecution after considering the above facts, directed the prosecution of Mahesh Kumar Bhatti and Anita Bhatti for the offence of forceful detainer contrary to section 91 as read with section 36 of the Penal Code. The suspects were ordered to appear before the court and answer to the above charges,” the DCI said in the statement. [email protected]