Lobby groups criticise Appeal's Court verdict on Mombasa Cement's land case

The decision by the Court Appeal to deny Mombasa Cement a chance to seek the Supreme Court’s intervention in a land battle with three brothers has been greeted with uproar.

Owned by the late tycoon Hasmukh Patel alis ‘Hasu’ the company had sought a chance to contest ownership of a Sh350 million land in Mavoko, Kitui County before the Supreme Court.

They had applied to contest the appellate court’s decision to give the 7.4 acres of land to three brothers; Ramji, Harish Ramji and Ashvin Ramji at the apex court.

The Environment and Lands Court in 2019 ruled that the land, once owned by the National Social Security Fund, belonged to Mombasa Cement.

However, the three brothers filed a petition at the Court of Appeal which later ruled in their favour.

It is on this ground that Mombasa Cement applied to the appellant court seeking permission to move to the Supreme Court. 

But on Tuesday, the appellate judges Patrick Kiage, Kathumira M’Inoti and Francis Tuiyott dismissed the application saying there were no new questions of general public importance warranting interpretation by the Supreme Court.

The civil society organization termed the verdict a mockery that could also erode investors’ confidence in the country's justice system and the country's status as an investment hub.

Commission for Human Rights Director Julius Ogogoh questioned the decision by the appellate court denying Mombasa Cement a chance to present new evidence to the Apex Court.

According to him, the verdict robs a law-abiding citizen and one of the biggest investors in the country a chance to present his case before an Apex Court, given verdicts by the High Court and Court of Appeal contradict each other.

“It is utterly shocking that the Court of Appeal denied Mombasa Cement a chance to present evidence before the apex court, giving undue advantage to the three brothers in such a weighty matter,” said Ogogoh who spoke on behalf of 11 other civil society groups in Mombasa.

The appellate court ruled that the discrepancies in land registration numbers on a title deed and transfer papers filed by the Ramji brothers were on account of a clerical error.

The judges further ruled that the Supreme Court had already rendered itself on the matters to deal with contested title deeds where it determined that the acquisition process carries the day.

The judges noted that Mombasa Cement did not file any sale agreement whilst the Ramji’s filed theirs dated December 22, 2006.

In its application, Mombasa Cement wanted the Supreme Court to determine who was entitled to benefit from court orders as its payment for land originated from a consent through another case filed by Harp Invest co, against NSSF even though the Cement firm was never a party to it.

It emerged that NSSF had sold the same land twice to different buyers.

But Ogogoh argued that the Environment and Lands Court in 2019 ruled the land, once owned by the NSSF belonged to Mombasa Cement. 

“Why did a court that overturned its win deny it a chance to present in the Supreme Court,” said Ogogoh.