Mixed reactions have greeted a court ruling that gave the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) the green light to seize more than 100 houses at Nairobi’s Woodley Estate.
While some residents welcomed the ruling, those against it insist the decision by the Court of Appeal will render many of them homeless in their twilight years.
Last Friday, appellate judges — Francis Tuiyott, Jessie Lesiit, and Grace Ngenye-Macharia — declared that the process used by individuals to acquire the houses was fraudulent and illegal.
The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Environment and Land Court in multiple recovery suits filed by EACC against private developers.
Environment and Land Court judge J. Okong’o had ruled in favour of EACC and issued orders declaring the title held by Paul Moses Ng’ethe invalid, null and void for all intents and purposes, having been acquired fraudulently and illegally.
Ng’ethe moved to the Court of Appeal, where the judges dismissed his appeal for lack of merit.
The recovery suits were first filed in the High Court on October, 6, 2006 by the defunct Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission, the predecessor of the current EACC, which will proceed to execute the Court of Appeal judgment.
As a result, anxiety has set in, especially for those who bought the targeted houses. They fear losing what they had worked hard to acquire and accuse the Judiciary of having lost touch with reality.
Led by Tirus Kariuki, vice chairperson of the Woodley Residents Welfare Society (WRWS), the homeowners said they are innocent since, as ordinary citizens, they believe that when a title deed is issued, the lands office and government officials responsible for processing the title deed have verified and confirmed that all consents have been met.
They accused the Judiciary of turning victims into villains in order to protect senior government officials.
“This ruling breaks hope for Woodley residents to own their homes, like those in other county estates who bought houses they have occupied since independence. How can City Hall receive money, issue title deeds, and then report to EACC to recover title deeds and properties? This is unfair and unjust,” said Kariuki.
They also raised concerns about the speed with which five acres, earmarked for the construction of modern houses by the Nairobi County Government, has been advertised for sale for Sh2.2 billion.
However, two former welfare officials welcomed the ruling by the Environment and Land Court that had rejected a petition by the residents’ society and other petitioners.
The petitioners were seeking to block the eviction of current tenants from the estate to pave the way for an urban renewal housing project by the county government, in partnership with Africa Reit Ltd.
Sam Gachago, the immediate past chairperson of WRWS, and his deputy, David Sosah, denied that the development by the county government would render many homeless.
“The decision to take legal action didn’t involve the broader resident community, and as such, we can’t be held accountable for the outcome of the case or the associated costs awarded by the court,” said Gachago.
He maintained that they were disassociating themselves from the court case due to the new leadership’s failure to engage in proper consultations, and that it was false to claim that 3,000 tenants risked eviction.
“That population size, as suggested by WRWS officials, is not based on factual data but seems to be part of a strategy to create a false narrative of mass displacement,” said Gachago.
He claimed that the development project only affects 10 acres of the 110-acre Woodley Estate, and that only 42 tenants are affected.
Gachago went on to say that the tenants had been fairly compensated by the county government, with each receiving a relocation allowance of Sh900,000.
The two also stated that, contrary to claims by WRWS officials, public participation had indeed been carried out before agreeing to redevelop the estate.
In dismissing the petition, Justice M.D. Mwangi, in his ruling, said the matter had already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.
“This court finds that the petitioners’ intention in filing this petition is to re-litigate an issue that has already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction; by giving it a cosmetic facelift and renaming it a constitutional petition,” Mwangi ruled.
