Image: Jack Owuor
Miriam Juma, the widow of the late businessman Jacob Juma, has faced a setback in her attempt to prevent eviction from a valuable piece of land in Loresho, Nairobi.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed her application, stating that her appeal would not be rendered meaningless without the eviction block, and noted her significant delay in seeking legal recourse.
Court of Appeal judges Patrick Kiage, Abida Ali Aroni, and Lydia Achode ruled against Miriam Juma. They observed that she took too long to bring her application to court and did not respond to the eviction order.
The judges emphasized that Juma would still have the opportunity to present her case during the investigations conducted by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI).
They stressed that these investigations aim to uncover the truth, which would benefit all involved parties and might resolve the long-standing dispute over the land.
Miriam Juma has occupied the contested property for over 15 years. The dispute began when Ashok Rupshi Shah and Hiten Kumar claimed ownership of the land, arguing that Jacob Juma had acquired it improperly.
In July 2022, Justice Loise Komingoi of the Environment and Land Court ruled that Jacob Juma had obtained the land documents unprocedurally.
As a result, the judge ordered the cancellation of Juma's ownership documents and directed Miriam Juma to pay KSh 50 million in damages to Shah and Kumar for trespassing and depriving them of access to their property.
The land in question is also claimed by former provincial commissioner Davis Nathan Chelogoi, who is involved in another court case regarding its ownership.
Chelogoi argued that he was not given a fair hearing in the previous ruling and sought to reopen the case, but his application was rejected.
Miriam Juma argued that the property was legally registered in her late husband's name. She presented an allotment letter dated March 1, 1992, and a grant registered on August 16, 1994, as evidence.
According to her, Shah and Kumar went to court to seek the cancellation of these documents, claiming the land was wrongly allocated to Juma.
Shah and Kumar contended that they were the rightful owners of the property. They presented another grant issued on December 1, 1994, first registered in the name of Liney Company Limited on December 5, 1994.
They argued that Jacob Juma had fenced off the land and constructed security houses, preventing them from accessing their property. Shah and Kumar moved to court in 2009, alleging that Juma had obtained the land documents fraudulently.
The Court of Appeal judges pointed out that Juma had failed to demonstrate the principles required to overturn the eviction order. They highlighted her delay in filing the application and not responding to the eviction order application.
The judges noted that Juma would still have a chance to present her case before the DCI, which is investigating the matter to uncover the truth.
In the original court ruling in July 2022, Justice Loise Komingoi found that Jacob Juma had acquired the land documents improperly.
The judge ordered the cancellation of Juma's ownership documents and directed Miriam Juma to compensate Shah and Kumar with KSh 50 million for trespassing and depriving them of their property.
Chelogoi, who also claims ownership of the land, argued that he was condemned unheard and sought to reopen the case, but his application was denied.
Miriam Juma maintained that the property was legitimately registered in her late husband's name. She argued that the allotment letter dated March 1, 1992, and the grant registered on August 16, 1994, were valid.
She stated that Shah and Kumar sought the cancellation of these documents, claiming the land was wrongly allocated to Juma. Juma contended that the grant given to Liney Company Limited was issued on December 1, 1994, and first registered on December 5, 1994, with identical deed plans.
Chelogoi, the former provincial commissioner, is also involved in the dispute over the land. He argued that he was not given a fair hearing in the previous ruling and sought to reopen the case.
However, his application was rejected. Shah and Kumar maintained that they are the rightful owners of the property, citing a court order to maintain the status quo until the ownership issue is resolved.
The Court of Appeal judges emphasized that the ongoing investigations by the DCI aim to uncover the truth and resolve the long-standing dispute.
They stated that the investigations would allow Miriam Juma to present her case and seek justice. The judges noted that the truth would benefit all parties involved and potentially bring the matter to a conclusion.
0 Comments