Deputy President William Ruto contests Sh5m award to IDP in land suit

JavaScript is disabled!

Please enable JavaScript to read this content.

By PAMELA CHEPKEMEI

Kenya: Deputy President William Ruto has appealed against a Sh5 million compensation awarded to an internally displaced person in a land dispute following last year’s ruling by the High Court.

The Deputy President has filed an application at the High Court in Nairobi seeking suspension of orders to pay the compensation to Adrian Muteshi together with legal expenses incurred by the farmer.

The DP, through his lawyer Kioko Kilukumi, argues that he would suffer irreversible damage if he pays the cash before the appeal is determined.

Muteshi, in response to the case, says that Ruto’s appeal is only meant to deny him the benefit of compensation awarded by the High Court.

Ruto says there is no security that Muteshi will refund the money if the appeal succeeds.

But Muteshi says he is a man of average means and he is able to refund any money paid to him as compensation by the DP, should his appeal succeed.

The case was set for hearing yesterday before Judge Mary Gitumbi but she directed the parties to appear on Monday before Justice Rose Ougo who determined the main suit filed by Muteshi.

Ruto says he should not be made to pay any money because no fault was found against him in the process of acquisition, transfer possession and ownership of the 100-acre land in Turbo Scheme.

Muteshi sued Ruto after being displaced from his farm in Turbo. He accused him of grabbing the land during election violence five years ago.

Judge Ougo ruled Ruto had acquired the land fraudulently.

He accused Ruto of taking possession of Muteshi’s land after he fled in 2008 at the height of the post-election violence.

Ruto had told the court that the land had been legally transferred from Muteshi to Dorothy Yator, from whom he had purchased the land from.

The DP says he offered to surrender the land to Muteshi immediately the Commissioner of Lands and the Registrar of Titles admitted in their defence that the parcel was irregularly transferred.