Kenyan court rejects Njiru residents' bid to block eviction from 73.5-hectare parcel
Written on
Forty-two residents of Njiru in Nairobi risk losing their claim to a 73.49-hectare parcel after the Environment and Land Court declined to restrain Njiru Ageria Development Company from evicting them while their ownership case is pending.
Forty-two residents of Njiru, Nairobi, risk losing their claim to remain on a 73.49-hectare parcel of land after the Environment and Land Court rejected their bid to stop a property developer from evicting them or interfering with their occupation.
The residents, led by Collins Odhiambo Osoro, had asked the court to restrain Njiru Ageria Development Company Limited from evicting or threatening them, or from leasing and selling the disputed property, while their ownership case was pending.
They told the court that they had occupied the land since 2000, built their livelihoods there and engaged in quarrying, and argued that their stay had been open, peaceful and uninterrupted for more than 12 years, giving them a right to claim ownership. They said the company issued a verbal notice on December 10, 2025 demanding that they vacate or face forceful eviction.
The company disputed that account. In an affidavit, its chairman and director Francis Mwangi Githua said Njiru Ageria is a public company with more than 600 members and the registered owner of the property, with members who paid the required fees holding individual title deeds. He said sections of the land have been reserved for public amenities including schools, hospitals, a market, sewerage and waterways.
Githua told the court that the company filed ELC Case No. 494 of 2017 against people it accused of occupying the property unlawfully, obtained an eviction order on November 10, 2021, and enforced it in 2022, when the applicants' structures were demolished. The company maintained that the 42 residents were among those removed and had not returned.
In a ruling delivered on November 2, Justice Mohammed Kullow dismissed the residents' application, saying they had not provided sufficient evidence to show that they were still occupying identifiable portions of the land. The decision means the residents have failed to secure temporary court protection against the company's actions while the main ownership dispute over LR No. 13468 awaits determination.