Supreme Court strikes out Sh3 billion Runda land row appeal

Court Gavel. [File, Standard]

The Supreme Court has dealt businesswoman Mary Wanjiku a blow by striking out her application in a Sh3 billion land dispute for failing to comply with its procedural rules.

Wanjiku moved to the apex court on behalf of her late husband, Juma Muchemi, arguing that she was on the verge of being evicted from the prime property following a Court of Appeal judgment that found the deceased, alongside Kiambu Mall owner Peter Mburu Burugu, held illegal titles.

However, Justice Njoki Ndung’u struck out the application after finding that it had been filed without a record of appeal, as required under the Supreme Court Rules. “Further noting the applicant’s January 28, 2026 written submissions in support of the notice of motion, the judgment of the Environment and Land Court dated July 11, 2024, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on January 23, 2026; considering that the applicant filed this application before filing a petition of appeal, contrary to Rule 31(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020; I hereby decline to grant the orders sought and proceed to strike out the application,” ruled Justice Ndung’u.

Rule 31(2) provides that a party seeking to approach the apex court must first file a substantive appeal for the court to consider. In essence, the court cannot entertain preliminary applications or requests in a vacuum.

In her application, Wanjiku argued that both the Environment and Land Court and the Court of Appeal had denied her legal rights by finding that businessman David Kimani was the lawful owner of the property.

She based her claim on long possession of the land, adding that her case was anchored on a separate dispute involving William and Kennedy Limited (WKL), which is still pending before the civil courts.

According to Wanjiku, her husband had purchased the property lawfully. “The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on January 23, 2026, and I am dissatisfied with the entire judgment and decree because it upheld the decision of the Environment and Land Court, which declared the first respondent (Kimani) the lawful owner of the suit property and its subdivisions, and further dismissed the appeals,” she argued.

The judge’s decision not to grant interim relief paves the way for Kimani to demolish structures erected on the land or proceed with its development. Wanjiku and Burugu lost their cases at both the Environment and Land Court and the Court of Appeal.

Justices Kiage, Korir and Odunga found that the documents relied upon by the two claimants were effectively worthless because their root title was questionable.

The judges unanimously agreed with Justice Edward Wabwoto that Burugu, Jumchem Health Care Limited, also known as Runda Palms, and Mary Wanjiku Juma had no valid claim to the property owing to glaring illegalities and fraud surrounding WKL’s title.

“As the claims of ownership by Burugu and Jumchem and by Mary Wanjiku Juma are ultimately traceable to and firmly anchored on the validity or otherwise of the title that WKL held, the inescapable finding of the fraudulent and illegal character of that interest and title, for the reasons we have fully addressed herein, means, ipso facto, that their claims also fail, as found on the evidence,” the bench observed.

The court further held that WKL could not lawfully continue conducting business or transferring shares after a resolution to wind up the company had been passed and gazetted in 1973.