The Environment and Land Court has dismissed an investor’s petition accusing the government of forcefully taking over his private school in Embakasi, Nairobi, citing doubts over ownership of the property.
In its judgment, the court ruled that the school owner, Goodrich Schools Limited, failed to prove that the State breached its constitutional rights in the contested takeover.
The school sued the Cabinet Secretaries for Education and Interior in September 2024, claiming illegal acquisition of two parcels of land and seeking repossession or Sh324 million in compensation.
Goodrich Schools and its director, Karen Mwebia, argued that government officers raided the premises in January 2019, vandalised property and marked buildings to signal a takeover.
It claimed that during the raid, the officers caused destruction on the suit properties by painting them in colours suggesting that the government had acquired the school.
It said the situation escalated in January 2020 when armed police allegedly evicted its staff and directors, effectively seizing the school without due process of compulsory acquisition or compensation.
The court heard that the government later deployed armed anti-riot police, including chiefs and other officials, to harass and intimidate the petitioner’s directors and staff.
Ownership doubts
The petitioner maintained it legally owned the land, having acquired titles in 2011 following allocation by the Ministry of Lands and subsequent changes of user.
It told the court that the titles had never been challenged and were protected under the Constitution and the Land Registration Act.
However, the court found critical gaps in how the land moved from a community-based organisation to a private company.
The court questioned the transition from Mukuru Community Centre (MCC), which originally held the land, to Goodrich Schools.
“The question now is, under what basis was MCC able to have the suit properties registered in the names of the petitioner, a private limited company, yet initially the same was registered in the names of trustees of MCC?” the court asked.
It added that there was no evidence showing the community approved or was informed of the transfer.
“One would also question whether the community was informed of this move, and whether they approved of the same,” the court said, noting there were no minutes supplied to indicate the decision of MCC for a change of user and the registration of the suit properties to the petitioner.
Missing records
The court noted that Mukuru Community Centre was formed to benefit local residents and relied on community contributions to develop the land.
It also found no records of trustee meetings authorising the conversion of the land or its registration under a private entity.
“This is where the disconnect is,” the judge observed, pointing to missing documentation and unclear processes.
While the petitioner accused the State of violating its property rights, the court said those claims could not stand without clear proof of ownership.
"Having carefully perused the documents in support of the petition, I am in doubt whether the petitioner is genuine as to the alleged violations meted out owing to the process of its acquisition of the suit properties," the judge ruled.
He added that the school had not demonstrated that its constitutional rights were breached to justify the orders sought.
Unopposed case
The case was not contested by the respondents, who entered an appearance but did not file responses or submissions.
Despite the lack of opposition, the court said it was still required to interrogate the evidence and establish whether the claims met the legal threshold.
The court emphasised that title ownership must be clear and lawful before constitutional protection can be enforced.
“The facts stated in this petition are not disputed, and the issues remain uncontested,” the court noted, but stressed that proof was still necessary.
Goodrich Schools had sought declarations that the government’s occupation was unconstitutional and amounted to compulsory acquisition without compensation.
It also sought immediate repossession of the land or monetary compensation with interest. The court declined all the reliefs and dismissed the petition in its entirety.
