James Kanyotu/COURTESYThe family of the late Director of Security Intelligence (Special Branch) James Kanyotu has won a legal battle over a Sh10 billion parcel of land in Ruiru, Kiambu County.
The Environment and Land Court declared that the 500-acre property remains part of the estate of Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited, where Kanyotu was the majority shareholder, bringing to an end a long-running dispute involving multiple companies and alleged transactions.
Delivering his judgment on July 10, 2025, Justice Oguttu Mboya ruled that the sale of the land was illegal, null and void.
The court found that previous orders issued in 2010 in a succession case relating to Kanyotu’s estate had expressly prohibited any dealings with the land, making any subsequent transactions unlawful.
The court heard that, despite these restrictions, Kangaita Coffee Estate’s land was purportedly sold to Trendsetters Investments Limited for Sh700 million and later to Marriott Africa International Limited for Sh750 million.
Marriott later transferred the land to Ukombozi Holdings Limited.
In his testimony, Marriott’s director, Abdul Dawood Hassan, told the court that the company purchased the land for Sh750 million and paid Sh15 million in stamp duty.
“While still under cross-examination, the witness testified that the suit property was sold for the sum of Sh750,000,000 only. Furthermore, the witness testified that the Plaintiff bought the entire suit property and not a portion thereof,” the judgment read.
The director also stated that Marriott’s majority shareholder was Ukrainian and denied any links to other parties mentioned in the proceedings.
However, the court heard that Marriott and Trendsetters shared the same business address, raising questions about the close relationship between the firms.
Margaret Nyakinyua Murigu, one of Kanyotu’s widows and a director of Kangaita Coffee Estate Ltd, testified that she had not been consulted on the sale of the land.
She told the court she was unaware of the transactions until long after they occurred. She stated that no proceeds from the alleged sale were ever received by the company or the beneficiaries of Kanyotu’s estate.
Nyakinyua further claimed that she was approached with an offer of Sh50 million by one, Kamlesh Pattni, to withdraw the case. '
She, however, declined the offer, insisting the land belonged to Kangaita Coffee Estate and remained part of her late husband’s estate.
“Moreover, the witness testified that one Kamlesh Pattni has tried to reach out to her and tried to persuade her to leave the case herein. Furthermore, the witness testified that same has even been offered Sh50,000,000 only. However, the witness averred the same declined the offer,” the judgment read.
Another family member, Willy Kihara Kanyotu, also testified that Ukombozi Holdings had been selling portions of the land despite the existing court orders barring such transactions.
Two forensic document examiners, Chief Inspector Bernard Cheruiyot and Vincent Chelongo, testified that some of the land control board consents presented to facilitate the transfers were forged.
“I have returned a finding that Juliana and Mercy did not sign the disputed letters of consent. I came to the conclusion that the letters of consent were forgeries. I returned a finding that the letters of consent were forgeries. I formed the opinion that the letters of consent were forgeries,” Chief Inspector Cheruiyot stated.
His counterpart contended similarly that the alleged authors had not signed the land control board consents presented in court.
Another family member, Willy Kihara Kanyotu, also testified that Ukombozi Holdings had been selling portions of the land despite the existing court orders barring such transactions.
Justice Oguttu ruled that Marriott could not claim a clean title because Trendsetters, from whom it acquired the land, held no valid title due to the caveats and existing court orders.
“In the premises, it is crystal clear that by the time the sale agreement, February 19, 2012, was being executed, the sale of the suit property was prohibited by lawful and valid orders of the court, which prohibited any dealings with the affairs of companies where the deceased was the majority shareholder,” Justice Oguttu said.
Justice Oguttu noted that Marriott could not claim a clean title because Trendsetters, from whom it acquired the land, held no valid title due to existing court orders and registered caveats.
The court applied the legal principle that one cannot acquire a better title than the seller holds.
He rejected claims that Marriot and Ukombozi were innocent purchasers without knowledge of the court orders, noting that the registered caveats and the pending succession dispute should have been sufficient notice.
The judge found that constructive knowledge of the pending succession case and the existing court orders should have been sufficient warning to Trendsetters and Marriott that any transaction on the land was tainted by illegality.
“A semblance of due diligence would no doubt have brought to the attention and knowledge of the 1st defendant to the counterclaim the existence of court orders. This, in my humble view, constituted sufficient warning to the 1st defendant to the counterclaim that any sale would be vitiated by illegality,” the judge observed.
The court permanently barred Marriott, Trendsetters, Ukombozi, and their agents from transacting or interfering with the land.
Justice Oguttu affirmed that Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited remains the rightful owner and that the land is still part of the estate of the late James Kanyotu.
“A declaration be and is hereby issued that the parcel of land known as L.R No. 11261/76 belongs to the 4th defendant/counterclaimer herein [Kangaita Coffee Estate Ltd] and the alleged sale to Trendsetters and Marriot was null, void, and fraudulent,” Justice Oguttu ruled.
“A declaration be and is hereby issued that the purported sale agreement dated April 19, 2012 between Trendsetters and Marriot is illegal, null, and void, having been entered in contravention of the succession court orders concerning the estate of James Kanyotu.”
With this judgment, the Kanyotu family can now reclaim full
ownership of the land, closing a long chapter of legal battles and restoring
clarity over the disputed property.
