Why did the court dismiss the case challenging the first-class land under Sonko?

The Environment and Land Court in Nairobi dismissed a petition challenging the ownership of a prime Nairobi land located in the Upper Hill area.

The plaintiff, Rajkosmag Company Limited, had filed the petition seeking the possession of the property with Land Reference Number 209/6507, based on an alleged sale agreement with the Kenya Railways Company in 2003.

Kenya Railways Company, Kenya Railways Company Retirement Assistance Scheme, Nairobi Land Registry Director, Attorney General and Primix Enterprises Limited were among the defendants in the case respectively.

Former Nairobi Governor Mike Mbuvi Sonko owns Primix Enterprises Limited. The company is the current owner of the land.

The land is now home to the Sonko Rescue Team, which provides emergency rescue and social support services to Nairobi residents.

According to Rajkosmag, the Kenya Railways Corporation was published in daily newspapers in 2002 as LR No. Defendant No. 209/6507 advertised the sale of the property and subsequently expressed interest in purchasing the defendant property.

Rajkosmag told the court that their expression of interest was accepted by Kenya Railways (1st Respondent) and as a result an offer letter dated 15 October 2002 was issued in their favour.

Upon publication of the offer letter, Rajkosmag said Kenya Railways had accepted the offer to purchase the property in the case.

Rajkosmag said they later signed and signed a sales agreement with Kenya Railways on February 7, 2003.

The lawsuit was filed based on the sales contract, claiming ownership of the real estate.

Rajkosmag told the court that despite entering into the sale agreement by reference, the 1st Defendant failed to perfect the transfer and registration of the suit property in its favour.

Rajkosmag alleged fraud on behalf of Kenya Railways in effecting and facilitating the registration of a vesting order in favor of the Kenya Railways Corporation Retirement Benefits Scheme (2nd Defendant).

At the same time, the firm alleged fraud by the Nairobi Chief Lang Registrar in issuing a provisional certificate in favor of the 2nd Defendant and failing to register the transfer documents in their name.

However, in response, the Kenya Railways Company denied the Claimant’s allegations, saying that no agreement had been made with the Petitioner for the purchase of the property.

The Kenya Railways Corporation added that the receipt linked to the sales contract as proof of payment was given to someone else and not to the plaintiff.

KRC denied receiving any cash from Rajkosmag in connection with the payment, saying that the check the banker submitted as evidence in court was made for another property, not the property in question.

The Kenya Railways Corporation Retirement Assistance Scheme sent Site Manager Audrey Chepkoech as a witness in the case.

He claimed that the property in question was leased to Primix Enterprises, Sonko’s 5th company.^he the defendant in the case.

Chepkoech told the court that they advertised the sale of the suit property and subsequently received various tenders, including from Sonko’s company Primix Enterprises.

It was Chepkoech’s testimony that Sonko’s company emerged as the highest bidder.

The witness alleged that the Kenya Railways Company subsequently signed and executed a sales agreement with Sonko’s company.

However, the witness added that the case property has not been transferred to Sonko’s company even though there is a company on the property now.

Chepkoech denied the Plaintiff’s claims of ownership of the property, saying that the Kenya Railways Corporation Retirement Assistance Scheme had never signed a sales contract with the Plaintiff.

He also added that the lease agreement in favor of Sonko’s company started in 2017 and the company only owns a part of the property in question.

The Chief Land Registrar in Nairobi told the court that Rajkosmag had failed to provide the necessary documents to facilitate the transfer of property as requested.

Sonko, Director of Primix companies, also testified in the case.

He told the court that the property in question was leased to the Sonko Rescue Team, which has occupied it since 2017.

He told the court that his company was sent a notice that the lease had been granted and then prepared a letter of acceptance.

The former governor said he purchased a portion of the suit property and is currently in the process of finalizing the sale.

In his ruling, Justice Oguttu Mboya cited the Kenya Railways Act which supports the need to seek and obtain board approval when purchasing such a property.

He also cited Article 13(1) of the State Corporations Act, which supports the requirement to obtain the approval of the minister and the national treasury.

Oguttu noted that Rajkosmag failed to obtain the approval of the Kenya Railways Corporation board of directors and the necessary approval of the minister and the national treasury.

The judge therefore concluded that the contract of sale relied upon by the Claimant was illegal, unlawful and to all intents and purposes void.

“…The plaintiff is before the court seeking the court to assist him in enforcing an illegal contract which is contrary to and in breach of the mandatory provisions of the Kenya Railways Act and the State Corporations Act respectively,” Justice Oguttu said.

“In particular, a court cannot use its power to enforce an illegal contract.”

Justice Oguttu also agreed with the evidence of the Kenya Railways Corporation Retirement Benefits Scheme which stated that the receipt provided by the plaintiff belonged to someone else.

He stated that the unsolved puzzle was how the sales contract signed on 7 February 2003 would reflect that the purchase price had been paid in full, but this was not the correct position.

Consequently, Justice Oguttu held that the plaintiff had not signed and/or executed any lawful sales agreement/contract with the Kenya Railways Company. It was claimed.

“On the contrary, the documents relied upon and disseminated by the Claimant constitute a blatant fraud…. In summary, my finding and opinion is that the Claimant is not entitled, or at all entitled, to the reliefs sought,” Judge Oguttu said.

At the same time, Oguttu held that the petition was time-barred and that the claims submitted by Rajkosmag were submitted outside the stipulated time periods.

In his decision, Judge Öguttu said: “There is no objection that the plaintiff has not proven his allegations to the required standards.”

As a result, Judge Öguttu dismissed the case based on the above-mentioned findings.

“The plaintiff’s case is therefore rejected. Litigation costs are hereby payable to the Defendants. “It will be agreed upon in the same way and will be taxed in the traditional way by default,” Judge Öğüttü ordered.