Forty-two residents of Njiru, Nairobi, risk losing their claim to remain on a 73.49-hectare parcel of land after the Environment and Land Court rejected their bid to stop a property developer from evicting them or interfering with their occupation.
The residents, led by Collins Odhiambo Osoro, had asked the court to restrain Njiru Ageria Development Company Limited from evicting them, threatening them, leasing or selling the disputed property while their ownership case was pending.
They claimed that they had occupied the land since 2000, built their livelihoods there and engaged in quarrying activities. They argued that their stay had been open, peaceful and uninterrupted for more than 12 years, giving them a right to claim ownership.
But the company disputed their account, saying they had already been evicted in 2022 following a court order and were no longer in occupation.
In a ruling delivered on November 2, Justice Mohammed Kullow dismissed the residents' application, saying “they had not provided sufficient evidence to show that they were still occupying identifiable portions of the land.”
The decision means the residents have failed to secure temporary court protection against the company's actions as their main ownership dispute awaits determination.
The dispute concerns LR No. 13468, measuring approximately 73.49 hectares in Njiru.
The residents told the court that on December 10, 2025, the company issued a verbal notice demanding that they vacate the property or face forceful eviction without further notice.
They said the threat prompted them to seek court intervention to protect their homes, quarrying activities and livelihoods.
Their case was that they had occupied the property continuously since 2000. They argued that the company had lost its right to recover the land after allowing them to remain there for more than 12 years.
They also wanted the Officer Commanding Station at Obama Police Station and the Njiru Sub-County Police Commander to supervise compliance with the orders and prevent possible breaches of the peace.
However, the company said the residents' account left out a previous court case and an eviction carried out in 2022.
A section of residents of Njiru risk losing their claim to a 73.49-hectare parcel of land after Court rejected their bid to stop their eviction.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
In an affidavit, its chairman and director Francis Mwangi Githua said the company was a public company with more than 600 members and the registered owner of the property.
He said members who had paid the required fees had received individual title deeds for their respective portions.
According to the company, the land is occupied by its bona fide members, while some sections have been reserved for public amenities, including schools, hospitals, a market, sewerage and waterways.
Githua told the court that one of his responsibilities after taking over the company's leadership was to address the presence of people who had allegedly occupied the land without authority.
The company subsequently filed ELC Case No. 494 of 2017 against people it accused of occupying parts of the property unlawfully.
It said that on November 10, 2021, the court issued an order allowing it to evict the occupants and other trespassers. The order was enforced in 2022, during which the applicants' structures were demolished.
The company maintained that the 42 residents were among those removed and had not returned to occupy the property.
It further said that after the eviction, it secured the land and restored members who had been dispossessed of their respective plots.
The company challenged the residents to identify the specific portions they claimed to occupy, arguing that the land had been subdivided and individual titles issued.
It also opposed the request for police supervision, saying the residents wanted to use the orders to return to the property rather than protect an existing occupation.
Justice Kullow said the central question was whether the residents had demonstrated a genuine basis for the temporary protection they sought.
The judge noted that the two sides gave conflicting accounts of who occupied the land and whether the residents had remained there continuously since 2000.
While the applicants insisted that their occupation had never been interrupted, the company relied on the 2021 court decree and the subsequent eviction to dispute that claim.
The judge said the residents had not identified the particular portions of the land allegedly occupied by each of them, yet their request sought protection covering the entire 73.49 hectares.
“The material before the Court does not sufficiently establish such a right at the prima facie level,” Justice Kullow ruled.
He added that the question of whether the residents had acquired ownership through long occupation, and the effect of the alleged 2022 eviction on that claim, would have to be examined during the full hearing of the case.
He also observed that the company had presented evidence that the land had been subdivided and individual titles issued. Granting an order covering the entire property could therefore affect people who were not parties to the proceedings.
He also declined to order police supervision, saying the request depended on the main order restraining the company and could not stand on its own.
