A family’s claim that its ancestors bought 933.9 acres of land in Kiambu County through a barter deal involving 2,000 goats and cattle has turned into a multibillion-shilling ownership battle over competing titles, powerful property interests and multiple court cases spanning 17 years.
The dispute over Kasarini Estate, near Thindigua, now pits ancestral ownership claims against registered titles, with the Environment and Land Court now examining whether four separate proceedings concern the same property following years of competing accounts.
Justice Yuvinalis Angima directed lawyers representing the parties to exchange court documents and establish whether the cases relate to the same land and title records. The information is expected to help the court decide whether the matters should be consolidated, heard together or proceed separately.
The direction followed disagreements among lawyers over whether the four cases concern the same property.
The Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
The disputed land, identified in earlier proceedings through various reference numbers, is situated near Thindigua along Kiambu Road. Its value has been put at more than Sh100 billion in parliamentary accounts, where members of the Mbogo family, through their welfare group, petitioned the Senate, seeking an investigation into alleged forgery, perjury and illegal alienation of the 933.9 acres, and compensation for historical injustices.
At the centre of one strand of the dispute is the Mbari ya Mbogo family, which claims the land belonged to its ancestor, Mbogo Wainaina.
The family says he acquired it from the Dorobo community through a barter arrangement involving 2,000 goats and cattle in 1930. This transaction was not in writing.
The family's claim was presented to the Senate in May 2023 by Kiambu Senator Karungo Thang’wa on behalf of the Mbogo’s Family Welfare Group.
The petition alleged that the family later lost control of the land following dealings involving colonial settlers under Kasarini Estate and a farmers’ cooperative – Kasarini Farmers’ Co-operative Society Limited.
It asked Parliament to investigate the alleged illegal alienation of land identified as LR Nos. 7153/1, 7153/2 and 7153/R, also referred to as LR No 12825.
The petition further alleged that Kasarini Farmers Co-operative Society was issued with a title in December 1981 despite questions about its registration.
The family says colonial settlers later established a coffee farm before control passed through a cooperative society and other individuals. Rivals reject the ancestral claim and rely on registered titles.
The National Land Commission also considered the historical injustice claim, filed under reference NLC/HLI/053/2017.
However, a Kenya Gazette notice published on March 1, 2019 records that the commission dismissed the claim because related court proceedings were pending. It also identified issues requiring investigation, including how the competing parties acquired the land and whether the cooperative legally existed.
The commission’s decision therefore did not determine the rightful owner of the property. Some parties also challenged the NLC's involvement arguing that the commission lacked jurisdiction over private land, could not reopen earlier matters and acted outside the statutory ten-year period.
The dispute has also featured in a long-running Environment and Land Court case filed in 2009 seeking recovery of the property and cancellation of titles.
In March 2023, the court declined an application by seven people suing on behalf of Kasarini Farmers’ Co-operative Society and Karani Self Help Group seeking to revive the suit. The court found that the applicants had not sufficiently explained the delay, leaving the underlying ownership dispute unresolved.
A separate strand concerns Ndunde Investments Limited, which says its property interests were affected by the creation and transfer of competing titles.
In a case filed at the Environment and Land Court in Thika in 2026, Ndunde sued Pamat Enterprises Limited, Wiyan Properties Limited, Gianni Limited, government land officials, the Attorney-General Daniel Gichinga Kahoro and the Kiambu County Government, among others.
Ndunde claims that land records were manipulated to create overlapping titles, including LR No.13316, over properties it says belonged to the company. It alleges that the disputed title originated from a grant issued to Gianni before being transferred through other parties.
The company also says it had sought to change the land use and amalgamate several parcels between 2013 and 2016 but that no new titles were issued through that process. It alleges that subsequent transactions resulted in competing claims over its land.
In their defence, Pamat and Wiyan deny that Ndunde has demonstrated a valid chain of ownership linking its documents to the properties they claim.
They challenge the authenticity and reliability of the documents relied on by Ndunde and argue that the company has failed to establish a connection between its alleged parcels and their registered interests.
The two companies say they acquired their interests through lawful transactions, including purchases made in 2010, and that the properties have since been occupied, developed or subdivided. They argue that Ndunde’s claim was raised after an unreasonable delay.
Pamat and Wiyan have also filed a counterclaim seeking declarations that their registered interests in LR Nos.13315, 13316 and 13318, or the relevant subdivisions, are valid. They want Ndunde restrained from entering or interfering with the properties and are seeking other relief, including damages for any trespass proved at trial.
The four proceedings identified in the latest court direction also include a case by Margaret Nyokabi Mbugua challenging an NLC decision on the historical land injustice claim, another involving Mbari ya Mbogo and executors of the estate of Mary Warurii Gikunju, and a case by Esther Njeri Gikunju against the commission and other parties.
The latest direction does not settle the competing ownership claims. Instead, it seeks to clarify the relationship between the proceedings and the land records at their centre.
The matter is scheduled to return to court on January 27, 2027.
