Developing story: Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi confirmed dead in chopper crash
Court returns land to owners, gives Kwale squatters six months to leave
The court ruled that the residents were trespassing on the land and issued a permanent injunction preventing them from occupying or trading on the land.
More than 300 squatters in Gazi village, Kwale County, face eviction from 304 acres of land after a court ruled they were not the rightful owners.
The court ruled that the residents were trespassing on the land and issued a permanent injunction preventing them from occupying or trading on the land.
However, Judge Addraya Dena also ruled that to save the occupiers from forced eviction, the occupiers should enter into amicable negotiations with Mbaruk Khamis Mohamed and Ziredi Mbaruk, the owners of the land, for the sale and purchase of the parts they occupy.
This, the Environment and Land Court said, would be at the discretion of the landowners and should be done within the next six months failing which the owners would be free to evict the squatters from the land.
In the alternative, Justice Dena said the government ought to put in place mechanisms and facilitate compulsory acquisition of the parcels of land for the benefit of genuine squatters within the next six months.
Justice Dena who awarded Mr Mohamed and Mbaruk Sh5 million as general damages noted the ruling does not apply to another parcel of land Kwale/Gazi 5010 and its subdivisions.
She ruled that it was her finding that (Mr Mohamed and Mbaruk proved to the court ownership of the land.
The court admitted documents presented by the defendants to support the claims of misrepresentation were in respect of another parcel of land.
Impeaching the titles
“The defendants failed to discharge the burden of proof that the titles 4513/45-57 were issued through misrepresentation. This court finds no basis for impeaching the titles to the parcels of land,” ruled Justice Dena.
The court noted that the defendants are claiming ancestral rights over the property whose ancestors agreed to enter into an agreement with the new owners.
“How can the defendants purport to be in a better position to speak on behalf of their ancestors who committed to the agreement which was entered after the issuance of the impugned certificate of ownership?” posed the judge.
The plaintiffs said that on October 26 2010 some defendants invaded the land, destroyed crops, torched houses and trees, killed dogs and stole all animals.
They told the court that on December 3 2010 they obtained an order directing free access to the property without the defendant’s interference.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs said villagers started stealing food crops from the farm and harvested timber for sale.
The plaintiffs told the court that the destruction continued into 2019 during which some defendants built temporary structures on the land and that their attempt to return to the land was met with violence.
