Officials from the Kenya Sugar Board made a second appearance before the Departmental Committee on Lands at Parliament Buildings, seeking to correct inconsistencies from their earlier testimony and to table original land ownership documents demanded by lawmakers.
The session, chaired by North Mugirango MP Hon. Joash Nyamoko, focused on resolving discrepancies that arose during the Committee’s previous sitting on Petition No. 28 of 2025. The petition has brought renewed scrutiny to a protracted land dispute involving Miwani Sugar Company (1989) Limited.
Board officials presented the original certificate of title for land parcel No. 7543, confirming Miwani Sugar Company as the registered owner. They clarified confusion from the prior session, stating that the document had remained in the board’s custody at all times.
However, ownership of parcel No. 7545/3 remains contested. The board emphasized that the matter is still under active appeal, jointly filed with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Attorney General’s Office, following a 2022 ruling that awarded ownership to Crossley Holdings Limited.
On corporate matters, the board disclosed that the transfer of a 51 percent stake in Miwani Sugar from Vanessa Associates to the National Treasury has stalled due to ongoing court cases. Officials pledged to submit detailed updates on the pending legal processes.
They also addressed concerns that out-of-court settlement talks had ceased,
” Our engagements under the Attorney General’s office are ongoing and that formal records have been requested to demonstrate progress”, noted Jude Cheshire KSB acting MD
Lawmakers questioned the absence of a substantive board to oversee key decisions, with officials acknowledging the gap and noting that reconstitution lies with the Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture.
Separately, representatives from Crossley Holdings defended their claim to the disputed land. Director Sikate Chatti maintained that the company acquired the property through a lawful auction. However, committee members cited a 2011 Court of Appeal ruling that nullified the sale, raising further doubts about the legitimacy of the title.
Additional scrutiny was directed at inconsistencies in documentation, including anomalies in a provisional title presented by Crossley. Chatti attributed the irregularities to errors at the land registry.
Despite the legal dispute, Crossley Holdings argued that its operations have brought economic value, stating that it currently cultivates over 4,000 acres and employs more than 700 workers at the site.
The Committee is expected to continue the the inquiry as it reviews submissions from all parties involved.
By Anthony Solly
