The High Court has dismissed a bid by six people to block Orbit Chemicals Industries Ltd from taking possession of land in Nairobi’s Mukuru kwa Njenga and auctioning buildings erected on it after a decades-long court battle.
Justice Edward Wabwoto dismissed the case by the six people saying they failed to prove that they purchased the land from the Kware Mukuru kwa Njenga Association.
Orbit Chemicals has been battling with squatters over the parcel of land since purchasing the land in 1987 from the National Bank of Kenya (NBK) and most decisions have found that the 95 acres of land belonged to the manufacturing firm.
“In this case, it is clear that the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the conditions necessary for the grant of temporary injunction and in the circumstances, the notice of motion dated 08/08/23 lacks merit,” the judge said.
The Environment and Land Court judge ruled that the six among them Joram Kagimbi Kiarie, Nelius Kariuki and Wanjiru Gaturu did not provide evidence to show that the association could sell to them the property.
They claimed that they purchased the property between 2001 and 2009 and were issued ownership certificates.
They further said they have erected residential houses and commercial units, which risked being sold through public auction.
The company, whose products comprise detergents, soaps and hand gel among other cleaning items, purchased the 95-acre land from NBK for Sh10 million in March 1987.
However, Orbit Chemicals failed to move in as squatters invaded the property.
The company later obtained a change of user from agriculture to industrial but moving in proved difficult because of the squatters.
The firm then filed the case seeking to compel NBK to order the squatters out of the land and pay Sh3,489,850 per month, for loss of income from August 1998.
Courts, however, absolved NBK of any blame, saying the lender did not encourage the squatters to invade the land.
“If anything, the obligation to ward off squatters never shifted to the government but remained the responsibility of the respondent (the company). We also note that the respondent’s “loss of use” was not based on failure to transfer or charge the title but on loss of use of land,” the court said in a ruling in 2020.
The company later agreed with third-party holders to pay for the parcels they hold or face auction.
Mr Sachen Chandaria, a director of the company, opposed the case saying the squatters had no capacity to sell the land as they did not own it.
“Equally, the plaintiffs’ claim herein is not a claim of adverse possession. Having also found that courts before me have pronounced themselves on the issue of ownership and given eviction orders, there is no basis upon which a prima facie case can be inferred,” the judge said.
