After nearly three decades of legal wrangles, a Nakuru businessman has finally won a long-running land dispute against the Kenya Prisons Service, with the High Court awarding him Sh10 million in damages for trespass.
Environment and Lands Court judge Millicent Odeny declared Dhanji Ranji the lawful owner of a disputed parcel of land in Nakuru and ordered the Commissioner of Prisons to vacate it within 90 days or face eviction.
The land, known as Nakuru Municipality Block 21/514 and measuring about two hectares, has been the subject of court battles since 1998 when Mr Ranji sued the Commissioner of Prisons and the Attorney General for trespass.
Ranji told the court he lawfully acquired the land in 1991 after applying for allocation from the Commissioner of Lands. He said he paid the required fees, was issued with an allotment letter, and later obtained a certificate of lease in 1995. He said he took possession and constructed go-downs on the property.
Prison authorities, however, later moved into the land claiming it formed part of Nakuru Prison.
Gibson Wahome Werugia, a surveyor, told the court that the prison land and Ranji’s parcel were separate and divided by a road. He testified that the disputed land had never been part of the larger prison parcel known as LR 452/1/4, which measures more than 600 acres.
Another expert witness, a valuer, said the land bordered the prison but was distinct from it.
In its defence, the State argued that the land belonged to the prison and had been reserved as such through a 1961 gazette notice. The Commissioner of Prisons insisted that the allocation to Ranji had been made in error.
But Peter Wanyama, the Rift Valley Regional Surveyor contradicted that position, telling the court that official maps showed the land did not fall within prison boundaries.
“I could not establish from the maps that Plot 514 formed part of prison land,” he said.
Justice Odeny noted that the dispute had a “chequered history,” having gone through multiple hearings and appeals since 1998. At one point, the case was dismissed before being revived by the Court of Appeal, which ordered a fresh hearing in 2020.
In analysing the evidence, the judge found that the 1961 gazette notice relied on by the prison authorities only declared prison buildings on LR 452/1/4 as prisons and made no reference to Ranji’s land.
The court further observed that if the prison needed the land for expansion, it should have pursued compulsory acquisition through lawful channels and compensated the owner.
The judge also rejected claims that Ranji’s allotment was irregular, noting that the defendants failed to produce evidence of fraud or illegality.
“The plaintiff followed due process and holds a valid certificate of lease,” the court held.
