The widow of former Finance minister Arthur Magugu has accused government agencies of violating her rights and failing to accord her equal protection of the law, over a disputed property in Muthaiga worth Sh17 billion.
Submitting before High Court Judge Lawrence Mugambi, Ms Magugu accused the Chief Lands Registrar and the Director of Survey of blatantly ignoring the irregular subdivision of her parcels of land.
She further submitted that the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) had deliberately failed to conclude investigations into the complaint she lodged seven years ago, against Karura Investment Limited, over alleged forgeries and irregular registration of title deeds.
“The petitioner raises matters to do with the right to property, fair administrative action, equal protection and benefit of the law, fair hearing and access to justice, which the respondents have violated,” she said through her lawyer JM Kariuki.
Karura Investments through senior counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi opposed the case arguing that the High Court does not have the powers to determine the matter.
Justice Mugambi will rule on the matter on November 6.
Ms Magugu alleges that Karura Investment Ltd illegally hived off part of her piece of land in Muthaiga North, subdivided it and disposed of it to third parties.
She added that she lodged a complaint with the National Land Commission in 2016 and another case before the Environment and Land Court but the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Ms Magugu claimed that Karura Investment created a fake parallel title and used a false transfer document dated October 25, 1993, to register new parcels. She maintained that the signatures used in the process were forgeries and that three forensic examiners confirmed the same only for the DCI to order another examiner who came up with a different outcome.
Ms Magugu argues that the chief lands registrar received letters from land officers from the Director of Survey that pointed out that the subdivision of the land was irregular and recommended cancellation of the subdivision.
However, the Registrar has refused to act on the recommendations thereby violating her rights. And despite confirming in writing and recommending cancellation of the deed plans, she said the Director of Survey has failed to act as per the law and instead allowed the illegal subdivision to subsist in its records.
Evidence presented in court showed that Mr Magugu obtained the title deed for a 101-acre piece of land in Muthaiga from Joreth Ltd on December 16, 1982.
Mr Magugu used the land, registered as LR number 12422/9, as collateral when his company Commercial Commodities Ltd borrowed Sh25 million from Grindlays Bank, now trading as Stanbic.
In November, 1988 Mr Magugu instructed his surveyor to initiate subdivision of the property into two parcels – one measuring 88.6 acres and another 12.9 acres.
The process took five years, and on October 25, 1993 the land was eventually subdivided into LR number 12422/203 measuring 12.9 acres and LR number 12422/204 measuring 88.6 acres.
The larger portion was split into two, one measuring 6.1 acres and which was registered as Mr Magugu’s. The title deed was finalised in 2004 – 11 years later.
Another parcel, measuring 82.4 acres was registered almost immediately and registered to Karura Investments Ltd and the title deed was ready on the same day, October 25, 1993.
Ms Magugu said the family discovered the changes when she filed a succession case.
Mr Kariuki submitted that the first subdivision was done and the registration numbers obtained, the officials went ahead and made two more subdivisions on the same day, which is practically and logically an impossibility.
Law Society of Kenya (LSK) supported the petition arguing that the High Court should hear the dispute as the widow alleges violations of her rights.
“The court is not called to examine the propriety or land user rights or boundaries as this would fall under Environment and Land court (ELC), but the court is being called to examine the actions or inaction of state officers, collusion and denial of justice,” the LSK submitted.
Mr Abdullahi submitted that such disputes were reserved for the ELC and not the High Court.
He further said the dispute was determined by the ELC, after the claim was dismissed and the latest case was an attempt by Ms Magugu to get a favourable decision, after failing in her previous attempts.
