DPP drops Sh300m land fraud case against businessman
The Director of Public Prosecutions Renson Ingonga.
A magistrate has withdrawn criminal charges against a businessman accused of forging documents to acquire property worth Sh300 million.
Mr Abdorahman Huchamsa, also known as Ahmed Nazil and Abdi, was charged with four counts related to forgery of certificates of title. He allegedly intended to defraud Pansiba Limited of four parcels of land totalling 1.6 hectares in the Kya-Ng’ombe, Embakasi, Nairobi County.
Milimani Principal Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo withdrew the criminal trial following an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Renson Ingonga, who recommended resolving the dispute through a civil suit.
The DPP argued that after reviewing the evidence, the matter would be best settled in the Environment and Lands Court.
Senior Principal Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo during court proceedings at a Milimani Law Court on February 5, 2025.
“The prosecution proffers the reason that, after review of evidence, they formed the opinion that this matter is better resolved by the Environment and Lands Court. In my view, that is a justifiable reason to warrant a withdrawal,” said Mr Onsarigo.
Pansiba Limited has contested the ruling. The firm intends to seek a revision at the High Court to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of the magistrate’s decision.
The DPP applied to withdraw the case under Section 87(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which allows a public prosecutor, with court consent or DPP instructions, to withdraw prosecution before judgment is pronounced.
"For avoidance of doubt, withdrawal under Section 87A of CPC does not prevent the prosecution from bringing charges against the accused again based on the same facts in future. The upshot is that the application by DPP seeking to withdraw the charges against the accused person under Section 87A of CPC is allowed and the accused is discharged," said Mr Onsarigo.
The magistrate cited Article 157(6) of the Constitution, which empowers the DPP to discontinue criminal proceedings at any stage before a judgment.
Lawyer Ben Musundi, who is representing Pansiba and its director Parminder Singh Sethi, expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling and said they would file a revision application at the High Court.
Mr Musundi said the trial should have proceeded to a conclusion since the DPP had earlier reviewed the evidence and police statements compiled by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and was satisfied that it could secure a conviction.
"We would like the High Court to have a chance to explain the right to acquisition. The Environment and Lands Court only deals with disputes relating to the environment, use, occupation, and title to land—not crimes," said Mr Musundi.
He added that the evidence gathered by the DCI and witness statements showed the case had a strong chance of conviction.
In the trial that started in May 2024, Mr Huchamsa denied accusations of fraudulently amalgamating four adjacent plots into two parcels and forging certificates of title purporting to be genuine documents issued by the Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning.
He was also accused of forging provisional approval forms dated April 4, 2006, which were used to effect the amalgamation and registration of the false certificates of title. He was out on bail pending trial.
Mr Huchamsa’s defence team welcomed the decision and requested the release of his travel documents and bail.
Mr Musundi said Pansiba bought the land on June 20, 2017 from Consolidated Timbers Limited and occupied it until 2021 when Prime Bank Limited sought to auction two of the plots.
Upon inquiry, Pansiba discovered that the two parcels had been used as collateral for a loan from the bank, which the borrowers had defaulted on.
It was at that point that they established that Mr Huchamsa had acquired the four parcels and amalgamated them into two.
The High Court will determine whether the criminal case proceeds or remains withdrawn in favour of civil proceedings.
"This prompted the complainants to report to the DCI for investigations, giving rise to this matter. In support, the complainants furnished the DCI with all their ownership documents clearly illustrating the chronology of land ownership to date," narrated lawyer Musundi.
If Pansiba invokes the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction, the court may either affirm the withdrawal or reverse it and reinstate the trial.
The High Court’s decision will determine whether the criminal case proceeds or remains withdrawn in favour of civil proceedings. The revision process ensures subordinate court decisions are lawful and fair.
