EACC in court bid to reclaim grabbed KRA land in Mombasa
Times Tower, Kenya Revenue Authority headquarters in Nairobi. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has moved to court to recover property worth Sh358.5 million allegedly grabbed from the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) in Mombasa City.
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has moved to court to recover property worth Sh358.5 million allegedly grabbed from the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) in Mombasa City.
According to the documents filed in court by the agency, the prime property includes KRA executive staff quarters in the Kizingo neighbourhood.
Former Kiambu Governor William Kabogo Gitau is among the 22 defendants in the case filed at the Environment and Land Court yesterday.
Also listed in the suit is Mombasa tycoon Ashok Labhshanker Doshi.
Former Commissioners of Lands Wilson Gachanja and Sammy Mwaita have also been cited for abuse of office and breach of public trust by facilitating the fraudulent acquisition of public property.
Mr Kabogo is implicated in the case involving plot number MSA/XXVI/1082, where he is listed as the initial allottee before the property was transferred to Delgreen Limited, Mr Doshi, Pratibha Ashok Doshi and Doshi Group of Companies, who are the current owners.
Sheikh Ali Taib is listed as a defendant in the case that involves the transactions relating to parcel No MSA/XXVI/693 where EACC alleges a parking yard was carved out and a residential unit constructed.
EACC says the parcel was initially allotted to Sheikh Taib and is now under the ownership of Dhrinder Kumar, Lalji Vimal, Lalji Rahishi Shah and Kasturben Lalji Raishi Shah.
Invalid titles
EACC wants the court to declare all the title deeds owned by those it has sued invalid, null and void and ownership of the properties reverted to KRA.
The agency also wants an order directed at Mr Gacanja and Mr Mwaita to pay general damages to the public for the alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of office arising from their actions that led to the grabbing of government property.
According to EACC, plot MI/XXVI/269 was alienated and subdivided before being transferred to private developers.
The documents indicate that investigations into the alleged grabbing and alienation of the property established that, in 1974, the government, through the East Africa Community (EAC), reserved the plot for the construction of at least 20 maisonettes for EAC senior staff. Construction of a block of 16 two-bedroom units on 0.96 ha was finished in 1977.
“On or about June 10, 1994, the plot was irregularly, illegally and without an approved Part Development Plan subdivided into two plots —-MSA/XXVI/685 and MSA/XXVI/686—despite the fact that the houses were constructed and were being [occupied by] government officials,” EACC said.
According to the EACC plot number MSA/XXVI/686 was further illegally subdivided into parcel numbers MSA/XXVI/693, 779, 1015, 1037 and 1070 -1078 without the approved Part Development Plan.
It further indicated that parcels MSA/XXVI/1070 to 1078 were illegally consolidated to create MSA/XXVI/1081 and 1082. The documents show plot numbers MSA/XXVI/1081 and MSA/XXVI /1082 where government houses numbers 125 A-D, 127 A-D,124 A-D and 126 A-D are constructed is now owned by Delgreen Limited, Ashok Labhshanker Doshi, Pratibha Ashok Doshi and Doshi Group of Companies.
It further alleged that plot number MSA/XXVI/1015, serving as the main entrance to the KRA estate with government house numbers 124 A-D to 127 A-D is now owned by the same people.
The documents further show that plot number MSA/XXVI/693 serves as a parking yard with a residential unit constructed on it.
In the case, the EACC wants the court to declare that the subdivision of Msa Island /block XXVI/269 into Msa Island /block XXVI/685 and 686 and further subdivisions were illegal, void and a nullity. It also wants a declaration that the letters of allotment issued with respect to the subdivisions were illegal, null and void.
The EACC is also seeking an order of permanent injunction and preservation against the persons sued, their agents, servants and assigns restraining them from leasing, transferring, charging, taking possession, wasting or in any manner whatsoever dealing with the suit property other than by surrendering them to the government.
