Anxiety as KBC land row returns to High Court

State broadcaster Kenya Broadcasting Corporation Photo:Courtesy

State broadcaster Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC) has gone to the High Court seeking help to wrest 700 acres from a local company.

The corporation has challenged the National Land Commission's decision to hand the property to Komarock Ranching and Farming Co-operative Society and Komarock Housing Society Ltd.

The land, located along the Tala-Nairobi highway in Matungulu, has been the subject of a vicious battle pitting the company against KBC.

Komarock Housing Company Ltd claims it purchased the land from the Government in 1963 and argued KBC was only allocated 24 acres atop Mukengesya Hill to install radio broadcast equipment.

But KBC maintains it owns the entire property, which it says it had held in trust over the years.

Commission chairman Muhammad Swazuri toured the property last year, on the invitation of Komarock’s chairman Bernard Maembe, and petitioned the Government to hand the land back to the company.

At an annual general meeting last month, Mr Maembe told shareholders NLC had written to the firm granting it part of the land.

PENDING CASE

But KBC went to the High Court in Machakos to challenge the allocation, claiming the ownership dispute was still the subject of a pending court case.

Lawyer Kinyua Mureithi for KBC last week made a fresh application before Justice O Agote seeking orders to restrain the society from accessing the property until the case was heard and determined.

In his application, Mr Mureithi expressed concerns that persons believed to be members of Komarock Housing Society Ltd had begun occupying the land and were planning to start developing it.

Former Machakos senator Johnstone Muthama has sought to be enjoined in the case. Through his lawyer Sharon Mbithe, Mr Muthama has opposed the issuance of land to members of Komarock Housing Ltd.

Muthama said the property was community land held in trust for residents of Matungulu sub-county.

In an application, KBC alleged breach of a court order by the respondents. It said a ruling issued on March 14, 2014, outlawed any form of interference with the property by the parties until the pending case was heard and determined.