For nearly two decades, members of Amani Self-Help Group say they have occupied a parcel of land in Nairobi, putting up houses and investing in developments they hoped would provide shelter and security.
But that investment now faces an uncertain future after the Environment and Land Court rejected their latest attempt to stop the enforcement of a judgment granting the landowners vacant possession.
At the centre of the dispute are Charles Munene Gatimu and Karegi Catherine Kamanja, who sued Ernest Omwenga, chairman of Amani Self Help Group, and 12 other defendants over land identified as Nairobi/Block 209/11970.
In a ruling delivered on October 15, 2026, Justice C.G. Mbogo dismissed two applications by the occupants seeking to stop execution of a judgment issued on September 21, 2025, and restrain the landowners from demolishing structures erected on the property.
The decision brings into focus a difficult question in land disputes: what happens when people invest in buildings on land they are subsequently found to have occupied unlawfully, and the rightful owners seek to recover their property?
For Gatimu and Kamanja, the dispute is about enforcing a judgment and recovering possession of their land. For Omwenga and his co-defendants, the immediate concern is the fate of the houses and other developments they say they have built over the years.
The court's latest ruling favoured enforcement of the existing judgment, rejecting the occupants' argument that demolition could not proceed because the original suit had not expressly sought an order for it.
The case was filed in 2013, when Gatimu and Kamanja went to court over what they described as the illegal occupation of their parcel of land.
In their plaint dated February 21, 2013, the plaintiffs accused the defendants of invading and occupying the property without lawful authority.
The defendants, however, said they had occupied the land since 2007 and had undertaken extensive housing developments.
Their argument in the latest applications was that the landowners knew about the developments but had failed to specifically ask the court to order their demolition.
Omwenga, who was sued both in his personal capacity and as chairman of Amani Self Help Group, argued that the absence of an express demolition order meant the landowners could not simply move to pull down the structures.
The group sought a stay of execution of the judgment delivered on September 21, 2025, while the court considered its objections.
In a second application dated February 25, 2026, the defendants asked the court to restrain the plaintiffs from demolishing their developments pending determination of the applications.
Omwenga alleged that the landowners had attempted to demolish the homes without a specific demolition order in the final decree. He also claimed that the occupants had not received notice of the decree from a court bailiff or auctioneers.
He further alleged that police were being used to intimidate the occupants over the planned demolition. The ruling recorded this as his allegation but did not make a separate finding that police had intimidated the group.
Gatimu and Kamanja argued that the original dispute had already been determined and that the occupants were using fresh applications to delay enforcement of the judgment.
They maintained that the court had settled the parties' rights and ordered vacant possession, entitling them to recover the property.
In their grounds of opposition, they stated that an appeal against the original judgment had been dismissed by the Court of Appeal in a decision dated December 20, 2024. They further said that an attempt to obtain leave to appeal to the Supreme Court had failed in a ruling delivered on November 21, 2025.
Kamanja separately argued that, once the court had ordered vacant possession, the landowners should be allowed to exercise their rights over the property.
The central issue before Justice Mbogo was whether the absence of an express demolition order in the original suit prevented the landowners from removing structures erected on the property.
The defendants argued that eviction and demolition were separate matters. In their view, the landowners should have specifically sought demolition when they filed the case in 2013, particularly because they knew that houses had been built on the land.
In the ruling, Justice Mbogo explained that vacant possession and eviction can involve removing structures where occupants have been found to be trespassers.
The judge's reasoning was that the right to recover possession of land cannot necessarily be separated from the need to remove unauthorised structures that prevent the owner from enjoying that right.
Justice Mbogo found that the developments on the disputed parcel infringed on the proprietary rights of Gatimu and Kamanja, whose claim had already been determined.
“The defendants/judgment-debtors have no other choice but to comply with the orders of this court, otherwise they will be in default thereof,” the judge ruled.
Although the court rejected the occupants' applications, the ruling acknowledged the potentially devastating consequences of demolition.
Justice Mbogo cited an earlier decision, which highlighted the financial and personal losses that can follow the destruction of buildings.
That decision cautioned that demolition is a drastic remedy that should be used sparingly and as a last resort, particularly where developers have invested heavily in their properties.
The issue illustrates the competing interests that often arise in land disputes: the registered or legally established owner's right to recover property and the financial consequences for people who have erected structures on it.
In this case, however, the judge found that the occupants' developments infringed on the landowners' rights and that the dispute had already been fully heard and determined.
The court was therefore not persuaded that the potential losses provided sufficient grounds to grant the injunction sought by the defendants.
The ruling means the occupants have failed to secure the court orders they wanted to shield their developments from enforcement of the existing judgment.
The 13 defendants are Omwenga, Peter Kinyua, Abel Oyaro, Protas Mandela, John Ngige, Charles Akunga, Samuel Moturi, Evans Obiero, Francis Ndirangu, Peter Kioko, Stephen Kibunja, Mary Wambui and Lucy Njeri.
