Court order ignored as construction continues at Moi family property

Buildings belonging to former President Daniel Moi near the Eldoret State Lord in Uasin Gishu Count on October 18, 2026. [Peter Ochieng, Standard]

Individuals enjoying State protection have continued constructing a perimeter wall around a prime property that the Moi family has owned since 1996 in Eldoret, despite a court order barring a forceful takeover of the home.

In apparent defiance of a temporary injunction issued on Monday by Justice Charles Ondieki of the Environment and Land Court, which barred General Service Unit (GSU) officers from taking over the property, construction work and other activities continued unabated at the home near the Eldoret State Lodge.

Construction workers were on Tuesday busy erecting pillars for the perimeter wall, while others laid blocks under the supervision of hawk-eyed men.

Masons were seen taking measurements along the property's fence.

Heavy machinery, including a bulldozer, and workers operating power saws were a common sight at the property, which the Moi family has owned through Willowdale Investment Ltd for 30 years.

Trees were being cut down as a bulldozer levelled several sections of the compound under tight security.

It was not clear whether the individuals intended to demolish the house, which had been under the care of caretakers until last month, when they were reportedly forced out by GSU officers. The officers claimed to have been acting on instructions from President William Ruto, who was in Eldoret at the time.

The previous main gate to the Moi family home had been removed and blocked with heaps of construction blocks.

A section of the fence opposite the nearby Eldoret Club had been demolished and converted into a main entrance to the property, with individuals in plain clothes manning the gate. The new entrance is also close to another gate to the State Lodge.

Also conspicuous, apart from the construction machinery, including the bulldozer and power saws, was the large number of workers at different sections of the compound.

The Standard counted at least 20 workers within the property.

On October 16, security guards manning the home were reportedly told that the property belonged to the State.

Alarmed by the sudden directive, the security supervisor contacted the owners, who said they were unaware of any notice requiring them to vacate the property.

The situation escalated when a senior police officer who identified himself as Kigen reportedly called one of the supervisors and said he was acting under firm instructions to evict the occupants.

“We asked our guards to stay put as we established the circumstances around the surprise orders,” the guard said.

On Saturday, the security team returned to the property accompanied by a lawyer and went to the State Lodge police station seeking an explanation for the eviction.

However, when they tried calling Kigen, his phone was switched off.

They proceeded to the State Lodge gate, where they identified themselves as occupants of the property and sought to speak to the officer in charge.

Instead, they were directed to an officer identified as Chelang’a.

According to the guard, Chelang’a told them that police had received instructions from their seniors to clear people from areas around the State Lodge.

“He told us that the police had been instructed by his seniors to immediately move people out of areas near the State Lodge,” the guard said.

The officer allegedly told them that the directive had come from the President  and that he could not be seen disobeying orders from the Head of State.

However, in his ruling on Monday, Justice Ondieki found that the company had demonstrated a legitimate proprietary interest in the disputed property through documentary evidence, including a certified copy of its certificate of lease.

The court found that Willowdale had established a prima facie case warranting interim protection of the property as the main petition is heard.

The judge further observed that granting a temporary mandatory injunction required a higher threshold than merely establishing a prima facie case.

He ruled that the company had met this requirement, noting that the evidence suggested the respondents had attempted to steal a march on the applicant, a circumstance he considered sufficiently exceptional to justify the orders.