A judge has stated that death threats will never deter or hinder judicial officers from fulfilling their constitutional mandate of dispensing justice.
A judge has stated that death threats will never deter or hinder judicial officers from fulfilling their constitutional mandate of dispensing justice.
While delivering a landmark judgment in a case involving a police officer who had threatened Moyale Magistrate M. S Kimani during a land dispute, Justice Oguttu Mboya declared that “threats can’t bar justice from being delivered.”
Justice Mboya made the remarks as he dismissed with costs an appeal lodged by Abdi Guyo Jattani challenging a magistrate's decision that declared his father, whom he had threatened to kill along with his sister Fatuma Guyo, as the legal and rightful owner of a commercial plot in Moyale town.
“Having analysed all the thematic issues, it has become crystal clear that the appeal is devoid of merit. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent (Guyo Jattani),” Justice Mboya ruled while vesting ownership of the plot to the older Guyo.
In addition to the death threats issued against his father and sister, Justice Mboya noted that Mr Jattani had also threatened the magistrate warning that “blood will be shed” if the case was not heard as scheduled.
Despite the threats, blackmail and intimidation, Justice Mboya affirmed Magistrate Kimani’s finding that the disputed commercial property Plot Number 212 situated in Moyale Town belongs to Guyo Jattani.
Abdi, who had been sued by his father for attempting to grab the property, resorted to threats when it became apparent that he was likely to lose the case.
Justice Mboya noted that the Directorate of Human Resource Management and Administration (DHRMA) deployed police officers to the Isiolo courts to screen all individuals and disarm anyone entering the premises.
Threatened to kill father
The judge revealed that Abdi had threatened to kill his father and execute his elder sister Fatuma if she testified against him in court.
Justice Mboya cited a letter dated June 30, 2025, addressed to the Commanding Officer of the Judiciary Police Unit, which detailed how Abdi, identifying himself as a police officer attached to the Kenya Prisons Service, issued threats at the DHRMA offices.
“He issued a threat stating that there would be serious consequences if this case was not heard on the scheduled date. His exact words were: ‘Damu itamwagika’ (blood will be shed),” the judge stated in his 29-page judgment.
Justice Mboya reaffirmed the resilience of the judiciary in the face of intimidation.
“No amount of threats, blackmail, inducement or intimidation can derail the course of justice,” he declared.
“Having taken the oath of office to administer justice according to the Constitution and the law, judgeship is a God-delegated duty. No amount of fear can compel me to act otherwise.”
Milimani Law Courts.
The appeal stemmed from a suit filed by Guyo against his son Abdi on April 19, 2021 seeking orders to restrain him from trespassing on the suit property or claiming ownership.
Mr Guyo also urged the court to declare that “L.R. Plot No. 212” rightfully belongs to him and that he holds all rights to its ownership, management, operation and revenue collection.
Magistrate Kimani heard evidence from both parties on how they acquired the property.
He ruled that Guyo had legally acquired the land in 1972 and had been issued title documents.
Abdi, on the other hand, testified that the land had belonged to his grandmother who gifted it to his mother, who in turn gifted it to him.
Tangible evidence
However, Mr Kimani found that Abdi failed to provide tangible evidence to support the claim of gifting. He further noted that Abdi claimed to have acquired the land in 1972 yet Guyo testified that Abdi was born in 1973.
“He could not have been a property owner before he was born,” the magistrate concluded.
Mr Guyo also claimed that his son had forged the title deed by inserting the name “Abdi” before “Guyo Jattani” to make it read “Abdi Guyo Jattani.”
In his appeal, Abdi claimed that the magistrate erred in law and fact by ruling in favour of his father.
A bird’s-eye view of Moyale town in Marsabit County.
“For good measure, the learned trial magistrate found and held that the claim by the appellant (Abdi) to the suit property was not legally tenable. Abdi cannot purport to have been gifted the property in 1972, long before he was born,” Justice Mboya said.
The judge ruled that the magistrate had taken the correct approach in evaluating the totality of evidence presented by both sides.
Justice Mboya concluded that the finding that the property lawfully belongs to the respondent, Guyo, “is well-founded.”
“The question that does arise is whether the appellant (Abdi Guyo Jattani) could have been registered as owner of the plot in 1972. Sadly, a plot or land property can only be registered in the name of an existing entity. One must be born before acquiring property rights,” he stated.
The judge added that the magistrate had correctly interpreted the law on fraud, as the appellant failed to present any documentation showing that the property was registered under his grandmother, transferred to his mother, and then to him.
“Proof of claims is not dependent on cosmetic submissions filed by lawyers, but on the credibility of the evidence tendered by litigants,” Justice Mboya concluded.
