Ruto's second fraud case to start
A case in which a suspended Higher Education minister has been sued by an anti-graft body over a council plot in Eldoret municipality will be heard in two weeks.
The Kenya Anti Corruption Commission (Kacc) has taken Eldoret North MP William Ruto, former Lands Commissioner Wilson Gachanja and two companies to court over a parcel of land it claims was illegally acquired from the council by the defendants.
On Monday, Mr Paul Gicheru who is representing the Eldoret municipal council told the court that they wanted to confirm if Mr Ruto’s lawyer had filed submissions in which he is objecting to the hearing of the suit.
Lady Justice Philemona Mwilu ordered that the preliminary objection filed by Mr Ruto be heard on November 17 and extended orders issued earlier stopping any interference with the parcel of land.
Mr Gicheru said in his submissions that the land which Mr Ruto is laying claim to was curved from a larger one owned by the council.
He said the land was purchased by the council in 1963 to construct houses for senior members of staff and that titles being held by the MP are null and void.
Loan
Mr Gicheru told the court in his submissions that the council constructed 13 houses on the parcel, including the one claimed by Mr Ruto.
He said the council bought and constructed houses on the land after getting a loan from the Federal Republic of Germany and Barclays Bank, the former of which it was still paying its loan to date.
However, Mr Ruto has objected to the suit saying that Kacc does not have a locus standi to take him to court. He adds that the court does not also have the jurisdiction to grant the orders sought and that the suit had not been properly taken to court.
He argues that if the allegations were true, then only the municipally council could take him to court because it had interests in the property.
Mr Ruto added that he was not obliged as to the time of buying the plot or for the purpose of purchasing whether or not the parcel was properly obtained by the vendor.
The MP said that he was entitled to presume that the parcel was properly and regularly devolved for the vendor and subsequent conveyance to him.
