Former Lands Commissioner Gachanja seeks relief from court for his 'never-ending' cases

Former Lands Commissioner Wilson Gachanja, Jibu Salim Mohamed and Zablon Agwata Mabea before Mombasa Chief Magistrate Martha Mutuku on March 28, 2023, where they were facing charges of abuse of office. [Kelvin Karani, Standard]

A retired civil servant, Wilson Gachanja, may soon find himself included in the Guinness Book of Records for his involvement in what is potentially the highest number of court cases in the country.

Gachanja, who served as a civil servant from 1989 to 1999, has spent his retirement years frequently summoned to court over allegations tied to irregularly issued titles and land grabbing during his tenure. He is often listed as a respondent in cases where the government, through the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), seeks to recover land.

Claiming he is haunted by cases he cannot recall or was not involved in, Gachanja has filed a petition in the High Court. He asserts that over 200 land-related cases have named him as a party, despite a lack of evidence implicating him personally.

“None of the above-mentioned suits demonstrates my liability, neither have any orders been sought against me in my capacity as an individual citizen,” said Gachanja in his case filed in Nairobi.

The former commissioner is suing the EACC and the Attorney General, with the National Land Commission (NLC) listed as an interested party. He highlighted cases from Nakuru and Mombasa courts as examples where the commission failed to substantiate claims linking him to dubious transactions. In one instance, a case in Nairobi involving EACC, Zablon Mabeya, Gachanja, and others was dismissed, as were cases in Nakuru and Mombasa.

ALSO READ: Ex-Lands Commissioner Wilson Gachanja arrested by EACC over Sh30m plot

Describing his financial and emotional toll, Gachanja revealed that he has spent approximately Sh178 million in legal fees. He stated, “In one instance, I was subjected to taxation on account of my inability to pay my advocate’s fees owing to an inordinate amount flowing from the high pecuniary value attached to the suit land. My participation in the suit [was] needless.”

He accused EACC of relentlessly pursuing him without bearing the financial burden of filing cases or paying defence costs. Conversely, he claimed he has had to sell properties to cover legal expenses, arguing, “They have a carte blanche to institute cases whimsically with no risk on the costs accruing.”

Gachanja argued it was unfair to involve him in cases more than two decades after his retirement. He maintained that any actions he took during his tenure were in an official capacity, without personal retention of documents or decision-making authority on land allocations.

“I am not capable in my capacity of supplying evidence to defend the said suits, having left the office more than 20 years ago. All the documentation and information capable of being produced in court is within the possession of the interested parties,” he said.

The retired civil servant claimed that his role as Commissioner of Lands was distinct from his identity and that decisions about land allocations were made based on directives from the President or county councils.

He criticised the selective targeting of his person, questioning why other officials involved in the allocation process had not faced similar scrutiny. “It is therefore unfair, unjust, and discriminatory to only sue the Petitioner as former Commissioner for Lands and not all other officers who participated in the process,” he argued.

ALSO READ: Former Kwale administrator fails to testify in Gachanja land case

Gachanja lamented the physical, financial, and emotional toll of the ongoing cases, stating that the litigation is degrading and inhumane. “Unwavering litigation takes a toll on a person, and more so when the individual is a senior citizen,” he said.

The former commissioner now seeks relief from the court, pleading for an end to what he describes as malicious and relentless prosecution.

“Cruelty has been defined as ‘willfulness and malicious temper of mind with which an act is done, as well as a high degree of pain inflicted’. The first respondent’s arbitrary decisions persistently continue prosecuting the Petitioner's screams of malice, with the resultant effect being the petitioner is exposed to extreme financial pain and mental anguish,” argued Gachanja.