Surveyor blames military for failing to do due diligence on disputed land

Lawyer Kipkoech Ng'etich with members of Rumuruti Farmers Company Limited outside Naivasha Law Courts on November 13, 2024 after hearing of a case where they have sued Kenya Army for allegedly taking over their land. [File, Standard]

A senior land official has blamed the Kenya Army for failing to conduct due diligence before taking possession of a disputed 250-acre parcel of land in Gilgil.

Rift Valley Regional Surveyor Peter Wanyama, while testifying before Naivasha Environment and Lands Court judge, Oundo Clausina, said the Ministry of Defence, upon the compulsory acquisition of the 265 acres and 146 acres, should have undertaken an official sub-division to isolate them, which would have prevented the dispute.

“Had the Ministry of Defence, at the time of compulsory acquisition of the two parcels of land, undertaken an official survey to separate those portions from the particular LR number, we would not be where we are now,” said Wanyama.

He testified in a case where 210 members of Rumuruti Farmers Company Ltd have sued the Kenya Army.

The company, through lawyer Kipkoech Ng’etich, has named the Cabinet Secretaries for Defence and Interior, Chief of the Kenya Defence Forces, Service Commander of the Kenya Army, and Attorney General as interested parties in the case.

Wanyama had been summoned to appear in court regarding Gilgil Karunga Block 9 and provide the Registry Index Maps for Gilgil/Karunga Block 9, particularly for Olburgel.

The Registry Index Maps for the land, he said, were published in 1990 by the Director of Survey. He noted that the index maps resulted from the sub-division of various parcels of land.

During cross-examination, the Kenya Army asked the surveyor whether he was aware that the government had acquired 146 acres of land from LR No. 3777/146 and 265 acres from LR No. 9776 through compulsory acquisition, a matter to which he said he was not aware.

The Kenya Army informed the surveyor during the hearing that a caveat was placed on the land in 1977 when the government took possession, but the surveyor denied this. He argued that had the caveat been placed, the Registry Index Maps would not have been produced.

The military maintained that, to date, there is still a caveat on the two parcels of land.