Developer in land dispute with judge and 7 other homeowners

High Court Judge Justice Joel Ngugi. PHOTO | FILE | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • The case revolves around two plots adjacent to each other and which share a communal access road.
  • In an affidavit sworn by Patricia Mwangi, a director of Guangzhou Villas, Impulse Holdings or Oryx Villas owners have never owned the second plot now claimed by Guangzhou Villas.

A High Court judge is embroiled in a land ownership row with a private developer in Nairobi’s upmarket Lavington neighbourhood.

Justice Joel Ngugi, along with seven of his neighbours, on Tuesday obtained court orders blocking Guangzhou Villas Ltd from accessing a plot adjacent to the one where their houses stand.

The case revolves around two plots adjacent to each other and which share a communal access road.

UNDEVELOPED

The first plot, which borders the main road and is called Oryx Villas, has nine maisonettes all of which have been bought and occupied by different owners, including the judge. The judge is one of the nominees for appointment as judge of the Court of Appeal.

The second plot, which is undeveloped, is the subject of an ownership dispute between the judge and his neighbours, who claim it belongs to the developer of their houses, former National Social Security Fund (NSSF) managing trustee Fred Rabongo and his wife Mary Akatch through their company Impulse Holdings Ltd.

This has, however, been disputed by Guangzhou Villas, whose attempts to access the plot in the past few weeks has been thwarted by the judge and his neighbours.

The matter has prompted City Hall to wade in and issue orders to the homeowners not to block the access road leading to the second plot. The residents state that, at the time they were purchasing the houses, Impulse Holdings told them that the second undeveloped plot belonged to it.

However, there is no document filed in court to support the ownership. Guangzhou Villas were therefore taken aback when Oryx Villas owners denied them access to the land, forcing them to seek City Hall’s intervention.

On September 24, 2019, Nairobi County Director of Planning, Compliance and Enforcement issued a notice directing Oryx Villas owners to allow Guangzhou Villas access to their property.

GUANGZHOU VILLA

Through law firm Mwenda Royford & Company, Guangzhou Villas stated they were the rightful owners pursuant to the transfer registered on May 7, 2019. Oryx Villas owners moved to court on October 15 and obtained orders barring Guangzhou Villa from accessing the land.

Through an affidavit filed by Jane Sigilai, one of the Oryx Villas homeowners, when they bought the houses several amenities were promised by Impulse Holdings, most of which have not been honoured to date. She stated that they were promised that the two plots would be amalgamated at a future date.

“The approval for development of the maisonettes was fraudulently obtained by Impulse Holdings and that the company had in fact been restricted to developing four dwelling units, each on 0.1 hectares only,” stated Ms Sigilai.

She added that the certificate of occupation which was ostensibly acquired after amalgamation of both plots was itself a forgery.

“It is therefore amply clear that Impulse Holdings fraudulently held itself out as the registered owner of the subservient property, when it well knew that the said property was not registered in its name,” stated Ms Sigilai.

In a counter application by Guangzhou Villas filed on October 17, the firm says that when they moved to the site with materials and equipment to begin construction, they were slapped with court orders restraining them from accessing it.

FINALCIAL LOSS

In an affidavit sworn by Patricia Mwangi, a director of Guangzhou Villas, Impulse Holdings or Oryx Villas owners have never owned the second plot now claimed by Guangzhou Villas.

She states that at no time was Guangzhou interested in the Oryx Villas property, but only moved to City Hall after the latter had blocked the access road by erecting an illegal structure.

“The plaintiffs are neither the registered owners of the property registered under Guangzhou Villas nor do they have any beneficial interest in it. The applicant is a stranger to the plaintiffs’ allegations on purported amalgamation two parcels of land … amalgamation of titles is only possible where the properties to be amalgamated are owned by one person,” she states. She adds that the only common interest is the access road and the shared boundary and asks the court to lift the orders.

“The 0rder is occasioning great hardship, inconvenience and financial loss to Guangzhou Villas who has been forced to stop construction works on its property. An injunction cannot be issued against a registered proprietor of land. The Order for Injunction should therefore not be issued in the circumstances,” states Ms Mwangi.

The matter will be mentioned on October 28.