Former MP, wife lock horns over Sh190m property

By Wahome Thuku

Former Githunguri MP Njehu Gatabaki’s wife put up a spirited fight to stop the husband from selling family land worth more than Sh190 million.

Rachel Mwihaki Gatabaki asked the High Court to restrain her husband from wasting, alienating, damaging or interfering with the 20-acre land in Kiambu District.

Through her lawyer Judy Thongori, she said the husband was planning to sell the land without involving her yet she had contributed in its purchase and development.

But Gatabaki denied claims his wife of 32 years had contributed anything in the purchase of the land. His lawyer Ashford Muriuki told Nairobi judge George Dulu his client had negotiated the purchase and made payments in installments.

The wife was never a party to the negotiations or the purchase, he added. The two were married in 1977. The former MP bought the land from his brother Samuel Gatabaki and his wife in 1996. It was part of a 200-acre farm in Kiambu.

Though the former MP signed a purchase agreement, the title deed was never transferred to his name, as he did not clear the money. It is still in the name of his brother and wife.

Jointly owned

The payments were made from funds of two companies jointly owned by Gatabaki and his wife. In one of the companies, Wanjenga Enterprises, Mrs Gatabaki owns 80 per cent of the shares and the husband 20.

In March, Gatabaki negotiated with another firm to sell the land for Sh192 million and entered an agreement. The wife filed the suit last month and the husband was temporarily stopped from interfering with the land pending determination of the case.

Yesterday lawyer Thongori said payments made through the family companies should be credited to her client’s name, as she was the majority shareholder in one and partner in another. She said developments on a land owned by one’s spouse are regarded in law as contribution.

Mrs Gatabaki further denied claims by her husband she had deserted him, and left for the US only to return last year.

But lawyer Muriuki submitted the woman could not lay claim to property that was neither registered in her name or her husband’s or both.

"The parties have no registered interest in this property," he said. The court will rule on October 22.