The Court of Appeal has denied Miriam Juma’s request to halt her eviction from a contested property in Nairobi’s Loresho area. Miriam Juma, the widow of Jacob Juma—a businessman murdered in a drive-by shooting along Ngong Road in May 2016—sought to stop the eviction process, but her appeal was rejected.
A bench consisting of Judges Patrick Kiage, Abida Ali-Aroni, and Lydia Achode ruled against Ms. Juma, stating, “We are not persuaded that her appeal would be rendered meaningless if the eviction order was enforced.” The judges found that Ms. Juma’s appeal did not demonstrate that the eviction would cause irreparable harm.
Ms. Juma has been embroiled in a lengthy legal battle over the Kes.1.3 billion property in Loresho with Ashok Rupshi Shah and Hiten Kumar. The property is also claimed by former provincial commissioner Davis Nathan Chelogoi, who faces fraud charges related to the acquisition of ownership documents for the land.
The dispute dates back to 2009 when Mr. Shah and Mr. Kumar filed a lawsuit alleging that Jacob Juma had fraudulently taken over the land, fenced it, and built security houses to prevent them from accessing it.
In July 2022, Justice Loise Komingoi of the Environment and Land Court ruled that Jacob Juma had indeed obtained fraudulent documents for the 18.25-acre parcel.
The judge ordered the cancellation of these documents and instructed Ms. Juma to pay Kes.50 million in damages to Mr. Shah and Mr. Kumar for trespassing and denying them access to their property.
In her appeal, Miriam Juma maintained that the property was registered in her late husband’s name based on an allotment letter dated March 1, 1992, and a grant registered on August 16, 1994. She asserted that Jacob Juma occupied and developed the land before Mr. Shah and Mr. Kumar took legal action to annul the documents.
“The court erred by relying on hearsay and disregarding official records from the Department of Lands and the Director of Survey that validated the deed plan held by Jacob Juma,” Ms. Juma argued.
The appellate judges criticized Ms. Juma for her “lackluster approach” in handling the case. “Ms. Juma’s significant delay in filing her application and her failure to respond to eviction orders is concerning,” they noted, emphasizing that these issues were more pressing than the ongoing Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) inquiries.
“The ongoing investigations aimed at uncovering the truth might ultimately benefit all parties involved and could help bring a resolution to the long-standing dispute,” the judges remarked, suggesting that Ms. Juma would still have the opportunity to present her case to the DCI.
