Court Upholds Eviction Order for Jacob Juma’s Widow from KES 1.3 Billion Loresho Property

The Court of Appeal has denied Miriam Juma’s request to block 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—had sought to halt the eviction process, but her bid was rejected by the appellate court.

A bench consisting of Judges Patrick Kiage, Abida Ali-Aroni, and Lydia Achode ruled against Ms. Juma, stating they were not persuaded that her appeal would be rendered meaningless if the eviction order was enforced. The court found that Ms. Juma’s appeal did not demonstrate that the eviction would cause irreparable harm.

Ms. Juma has been embroiled in a protracted 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Miriam Juma to pay Kes.50 million in damages to Mr. Shah and Mr. Kumar for trespassing and denying them access to their property.

Davis Nathan Chelogoi later sought to overturn this decision, arguing that he had been denied a fair hearing. However, his application to reopen the case was rejected.

Miriam Juma Appeal
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.

Furthermore, Ms. Juma criticized the court for relying on the testimony of Antipas Nyanjwa and hearsay from Zablon Mabeya to prove forgery, while disregarding official records from the Department of Lands and the Director of Survey that validated the deed plan held by Jacob Juma and questioned the validity of the grant held by Mr. Shah.

The appellate judges criticized Ms. Juma for her “lackluster approach” in handling the case. They pointed out the significant delay in filing her application and her failure to respond to eviction orders, which they deemed more pressing than the ongoing Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) inquiries.

The court noted that Ms. Juma would still have the opportunity to present her case to the DCI. The judges suggested that 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.