29 Runda residents appeal against High Court order to surrender land for road

Some of the houses in Runda to be demolished to pave way for the expansion of the Northern Bypass. [PHOTOS: JENIPHER WACHIE/STANDARD]

By WAHOME THUKU

NAIROBI; KENYA: The High Court has ordered 29 residents of upmarket Runda Mimosa to surrender portions of their land for the expansion of a road.

The order could see several homes demolished by the Government for expansion of the Sh8 billion Northern Bypass.

Kitui Senator David Musila is among the group of land owners expected to surrender part of their land.

Musila’s land and house are worth more than Sh35 million.

The order requires them to surrender 20 metres of the land within 90 days of the judgment, for the expansion of the road, which is intended to ease traffic congestion in and out of the city.

Others required to surrender their land include media manager Ian Fernandes, as well as prominent professionals and businessmen.

Four companies – Microland Investments, Do It Quality Management, Pallamart Properties and Texcal House Service Station, and own other portions.

Court of Appeal

They are part of 296 plots curved out of the land initially owned by Edith Cockburn, Estav Limited.

But the residents have moved to the Court of Appeal to challenge the order issued by Lady Justice Mumbi Ngugi on April 25, this year.

They will be seeking an injunction to stop the Government from interfering with the properties worth more than Sh2 billion pending the determination of the appeal.

The Government acquired the land from the original owners Edith Cockburn, Estav Limited and Runda Coffee Estate in 1970.

The Government later leased part of the land to property developing firms, Cycad Properties Limited in December 2003. Other parcels were sold to individuals who put up homes.

The dispute between the Government and residents revolves around the width of the land reserved for construction of the road.

Residents claim when they purchased the land, official documents at the Lands Ministry indicated the road reserve was 60 meters wide.

The Roads Ministry however, insists the road was 80 meters wide and that residents had encroached on public property.

The dispute started in 2010 when the Government earmarked the premises for demolition to recover the 20 extra meters of the road width. The 21-kilometre road connects Ruaka Trading Center on Limuru Road and Kiambu Road passing through Runda.

Residents filed two separate petitions that were consolidated and heard together.

 The residents sued the Attorney General, the ministries of Lands and Roads, the Kenya National Highways Authority and the Kenya Urban Roads Authority.

Government clearance

One of the residents Elizabeth Wambui Githinji says her family acquired the property in Runda Mimosa and got the certificate of lease on July 25, 1995. She then put up her home.

She says before putting up her house, she got approvals from the City Council of Nairobi and other Government agencies.

The petitioners claimed they got clearance from various Government agencies before they commenced the development and were never informed that the road reserve was 80 meters. But the Roads Ministry was categorical that it was originally 80 metres.

“At the time the house was being erected, the building plans indicated the road reserve through Runda was planned at a width of 60 meters,” says Ms Githinji. She produced a Land map signed by the Director of City Planning on July 29, 2005.

She says later she learned the Roads ministry was claiming the road reserve was 80 meters wide.

Interestingly, when the petitioners filed the case against the Government in 2010, their lawyer was Prof Githu Muigai who is now the Attorney General.

He was then a partner in Mohamed Muigai law firm, which is still representing them in court.

According to legal advice given by Prof Muigai to the petitioners on November 15, 2010, the registration of a person as proprietor of property gave him or her absolute ownership together with its rights and privileges.

Prof Muigai advised the petitioners then that the intended demolition of their houses violated Article 40 and 64 of the Constitution on the enjoyment and protection of right to own property.

It was Prof Muigai who advised the 29 petitioners to file the case on behalf of all those affected by the intended by-pass. He argued that the High Court had the constitutional powers to enforce the protection of those rights.

However, in court, Prof Muigai, now the Attorney General, turned round and argued that the public would lose more than the residents who had invested in the land.

The petitioners’ argue that the road has already been completed leaving enough space on the sides without interfering with their properties.

They argue that their titles and leases issued by the Government have never been revoked or cancelled in any legal process course lies in legal claim in law against those who sold land to them,” Justice Ngugi said.