Property worth millions of shillings was reduced to rubble in Marurui, Kiambu county as police oversaw the demolition of several, leaving several residents homeless.

Some of the affected buildings were still under construction.

The dispute primarily involves two companies: Langton Investments Limited and Meron Limited, alongside land administration authorities, with each party presenting competing claims over possession, registration and lawful control of the property.

FKF rift deepens as Hussein alleges “coup plot” amid Mariga fallout Football

KCB to dare Tusker in FKF Cup semi-final blockbuster Football

Court records show that earlier in 2023, Langton Investments Limited moved to the Environment and Land Court seeking to restrain Meron Limited from dealing with the suit property.

In its case, it argued that it was the lawful owner of LR No 28401 and its subdivisions and that Meron Limited had no legal right to enter, develop or otherwise interfere with the land.

“On 22nd November, 2023, this court, after considering the Plaintiff’s (Langton investments) application dated October 31, 2023, issued an order of injunction restraining the 1st Defendant (Meron Limited) from entering, selling, transferring, alienating, developing, or dealing with the suit property L.R. No. 28401, including any subdivision thereof pending the hearing and determination of the suit,” the records show.

The order was, however, contested by Meron Limited, which returned to court arguing that an earlier status quo order issued on November 10, 2023, had already recognised its possession of the land and that the injunction disrupted the balance the court had initially preserved.

Meron Limited’s position was that it was in actual occupation of the property and had developed parts of it, including farming activities and employment of workers on site.

It further argued that the land had already been subdivided into six registered parcels, all allegedly in its name, and that its interest was protected under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, which grants indefeasibility of title unless fraud or illegality is proven.

The company also claimed that the injunction effectively operated as an eviction order issued at an interlocutory stage without a full hearing and that material facts about its possession had not been properly presented to the court when the orders were issued.

“As a result, the orders of injunction currently in force have put the Applicant (Meron Limited) in a precarious position as it stares at being evicted from the suit properties, and its economic farming interests have been put into serious jeopardy,” the ruling states.

Langton Investments Limited opposed these arguments, maintaining that Meron Limited had failed to produce evidence of possession during the injunction hearing and that the court had acted properly within its discretion under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

“It was submitted that an injunction order cannot be set aside unless, subsequent to the issuance thereof, circumstances exist that render the continued retention of the injunction unreasonable or unjustifiable,” it further notes.

According to Langton, allowing Meron Limited to continue dealing with the property would undermine the authority of the court and prejudice the pending determination of ownership, which could only be resolved through a full trial.

When the matter was reconsidered, the Environment and Land Court on December 4, 2023, declined to set aside the injunction.

The court held that Meron Limited had not demonstrated any new evidence or changed circumstances to justify varying the orders, and found that the dispute raised serious issues of ownership that could not be determined at an interlocutory stage.

The court further observed that the application appeared to be an attempt to litigate ownership through procedural applications rather than through a full hearing and directed that the matter proceed to trial, where evidence from all parties could be properly tested.

Amid the ongoing injunction dispute, court records show that a parallel legal battle emerged over the cancellation of the titles of the subdivided land.

In a judicial review application, Meron Limited challenged the decision by the Chief Land Registrar to revoke and cancel its titles over the same parcels, arguing that the action was taken without jurisdiction and without affording it a fair hearing.

“Meron Limited, seeks an order of Certiorari to remove into this court and quash the decision by the Registrar of Titles, Nairobi, to revoke and cancel the leases and certificates of titles in respect to parcels of land,” the application reads.

The company maintained that only a court could cancel land titles, especially in allegations involving fraud, and that administrative action violated constitutional protections over property rights.

The Registrar of Titles and Langton Investments Limited defended the cancellation, arguing that the titles had been obtained through irregular subdivision and fraud, and that statutory powers allowed correction of the land register.

They also claimed that notices had been issued and that Meron Limited failed to comply with the summons requiring the surrender of the disputed titles.

However, in a judgement delivered on February 5, 2025, the High Court found that the Registrar had acted beyond legal authority by cancelling the titles without following proper legal procedure.

“I hereby issue an order of Certiorari removing into this court and quashing the decision by the Registrar of Titles, Nairobi, to revoke and cancel the leases and certificates of titles in respect to parcels of land,” Justice Edward Wabwoto ruled.

It is this layered legal background that has now spilled into Marurui on the ground.