Squatters embroiled in a legal battle with the family of former Kitui governor Charity Gill over ownership of prime land in Mombasa are worried that if a court determines documents in the politician's possession are genuine. , asked the court to consider their plight.
Testifying in the Environment and Land Court, Omar Kay told judge Lucas Naikuni that he and other squatters had considered the land their home since 1970.
“We do not know whether there is title to the property, but if there is, the court will have to investigate how it was acquired. If so, I urge this court to help us find an alternative place to relocate. We are Kenyans and deserve a place to call home.” he said.
Under the guidance of lawyer Hamisi Salim, Mr Kai denied signing any documents, receiving money from anyone or being involved in any transactions related to the property in question.
Kai is one of 19 squatters who filed suit against Ngilu for illegally occupying their properties.
According to court records, the former minister filed the suit in 2022 along with Lunde Jemi Mwendwa, Mwende Katesia and Shalo Gil Mwendwa. The four are acting as personal representatives of the estate of the late Michael Mwendwa Ngilu.
The squatters deny that the land belongs to the Ngilas family or that they are the beneficiaries of the land.
“We believe that the title documents obtained in respect of this property were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and are therefore invalid,” they said.
Defendants argue that although land records show that the property was originally claimed by an individual, the transfer to another person was registered through government acquisition after the original owner failed to pay government rent. They claim that this is contradictory.
“The original grant to the first owner has not been disclosed to clarify the nature of the grant and its terms,” they said in a legal filing.
Some of the squatters claim to have lived on the site for more than 20 years, while others say they were welcomed and built on the site more than a decade ago.
They argue that they have an interest in the property and that Ngilu's case should be dismissed.
“We have a fundamental right to refuge and should not be evicted from our land unless the state provides a replacement. In fact, both the national and county governments have There is a constitutional obligation to acquire such property on their behalf,” they stressed.
The squatters claim that they have never seen anyone from the Gill family on the land since they occupied it, and that their claims of ownership are false.
They also say their land occupancy is known to the Mombasa County Government, which has assured them of allotment of land or provision of alternative land.
The former Kitui governor told the court that she assumed ownership of the land as the personal representative of her late husband's estate.
“We have always peacefully and exclusively occupied the land after obtaining the necessary documents,” she said.
To support her case, Ms Ngilu presented a copy of the grant confirmation issued by the court in the 2012 Inheritance Cause.
According to court records, the land, parcel number 2427 (original number 2402/5) Section VI Mainland North, belongs to Michael Mwendwa Ngilu, but has been encroached upon by an individual who has built a house on it.
The facility is located adjacent to the Kenya Ports Authority and close to the Mombasa-Nairobi Expressway.
The politician went to court last year after learning of an intrusion into his premises by unidentified persons.
Ngil said a whistleblower alerted her to the break-in in 2020, reporting that unknown persons were trespassing and attempting to build structures on the land.
However, the court was informed that the trespassers had agreed to leave the premises on condition that they receive compensation.
She lamented in court that the defendants continued to illegally occupy the property, preventing its development and profits from being made therefrom.
MsNgilu informed the court that several efforts to force the defendants to vacate the premises have been met with opposition, harassment and violence.
In October 2022, the court issued an interim order preventing further construction on the site.
A similar order was repeated in December last year after the court was informed that the defendants were still engaged in illegal construction despite the court order.
The plaintiffs filed suit after unsuccessful attempts to force the defendants to vacate the premises.
The court issued an injunction prohibiting further trespassing or construction on the property until the case is resolved.
