Supreme Court stops recovery of Sh1.5 billion in Ruaraka land saga

Three detained over Sh10 million theft from Safaricom Sacco bank account

The Supreme Court has temporarily stopped the recovery of Sh1.5 billion paid as compensation for land hosting Ruaraka High School and Drive-In Primary School, granting Huelands Limited and Afrison Export Import Limited a reprieve.

The apex court on August 18, certified as urgent an application challenging a Court of Appeal decision that declared the compensation unlawful.

A full bench led by Chief Justice Martha Koome issued interim orders barring the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the National Land Commission from taking steps to recover the money pending determination of the application.

The court also prohibited any alteration of the land register relating to L.R. Nos. 7879/4, 7879/24 and 7879/25.

The interim orders further stop any demolition or eviction from the disputed property and bar criminal prosecution of directors and officers of Huelands Limited and Afrison Export Import Limited in connection with the dispute, pending further directions by the Supreme Court.

The court directed that the application be served on the respondents immediately and in any event by the close of business on August 18.

The respondents have five days to file their responses, after which the applicants will have three days to file a reply.

The matter will come up before the Deputy Registrar on August 28, for further directions.

“Pending the hearing and determination of the Motion, there shall be an interim order staying the execution of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 3rd July 2026 and consequential decretal orders, in the terms set out in prayers 3(a) to (d) of the Notice of Motion,” said the court.

The dispute concerns approximately 13.5 acres of land on L.R. No. 7879/4, where Ruaraka High School and Drive-In Primary School stand.

The Environment and Land Court had previously found that the land was public property, holding that it had been surrendered to the government as a condition for subdivision approval granted in 1982.

The Court of Appeal on July 3, 2026, upheld the ELC decision, finding that the National Land Commission had no legal basis to compulsorily acquire the property and consequently declaring the Sh1.5 billion compensation paid to the private developers unlawful.

Following the decision, the EACC welcomed the ruling and announced that it would pursue recovery of the funds.

The anti-graft agency also said it would resubmit an inquiry file to the DPP for consideration of possible criminal charges against public officials and other individuals involved in the compensation process.

Huelands Limited, however, moved to the Supreme Court seeking urgent intervention, arguing that the Court of Appeal judgment exposed the company and its directors to imminent enforcement and criminal proceedings.

The company also argued that the death of its director, Francis Mburu Muigai, who it said controlled the day-to-day operations, had complicated the prospect of prosecuting surviving non-executive directors.

” Francis Mburu Muigai is now deceased and is no longer able to account for or respond to the allegations touching on the impugned transactions, rendering it irregular, unfair, and prejudicial for the 7th and 9th Respondents to threaten or pursue investigation, arrest, or prosecution against the surviving non-executive directors in his stead,” read the court document.

Huelands further argued that the Court of Appeal had erred by accepting an implied or “de facto” surrender of the land to the government without requiring a formal instrument of surrender.

“The Court of Appeal’s finding of a valid surrender of the suit portions, absent any formal instrument of surrender executed by the Petitioner/Applicant and Afrison Export Import Limited through their properly constituted organs, and absent due regard to the documentary record of title as required by section 97(1) of the Evidence Act, is inconsistent with the binding authority of this Honourable Court in Fanikiwa (supra), raises a weighty and substantial question of law as to the constitutional protection of registered private property under Article 40 of the Constitution, and demonstrates that the Petition of Appeal has high prospects of success, this Honourable Court having already pronounced itself in the Petitioner/Applicant’s favour on the governing principles of surrender in Fanikiwa (supra),” read the court document.