Court Freezes Dealings on 3,000 Acres of Disputed Machakos Land

By Andrew Kariuki

The Environment and Land Court has temporarily stopped all dealings on more than 3,000 acres of land in Machakos County following a dispute over ownership involving multiple parties.

In interim orders issued by Justice Anne Yatich Koros, the court restrained former Treasury Permanent Secretary Charles Mbindyo, the National Land Commission, the Agricultural Development Corporation (ADC), the Machakos County Government, the Chief Land Registrar and the Africa Inland Church from selling, transferring, leasing, or interfering with the land until the case is heard and determined.

The orders were issued after an application by members of the Stoni Athi Association, who claim lawful entitlement to the land.

According to submissions made in court by the association’s lawyer, Philip Nyachoti, the land originally formed part of a 10,000-acre parcel owned by the ADC.

Nyachoti told the court that in 1988, Mbindyo entered into a sale agreement with the ADC to purchase the land.

However, the court heard that despite allegedly failing to pay the full purchase price, Mbindyo was issued with a title deed covering the entire property.

Nyachoti further stated that between 1990 and 1991, the ADC recovered about 3,000 acres of the land after receiving Sh2.9 million, effectively repossessing a portion of the property.

The reclaimed land, the court was told, later became available for allocation and was surrendered to the Machakos County Government in 2013.

Members of the Stoni Athi Association later expressed interest in acquiring the land and formally sought approval from the National Land Commission.

After reviewing the land’s status and confirming its availability, the NLC authorised the allocation.

The association maintains that it followed all required procedures before being allocated the land but claims that interference by other parties has persisted, prompting the court action.

In granting the temporary orders, Justice Koros noted that the dispute raises serious questions concerning land ownership, past transactions, and public interest.

She directed that the status quo be maintained to prevent further dealings that could complicate the case before it is fully resolved.