A 68-year-old widow on Thursday, April 13, narrated how she reportedly lost property worth Ksh35 million in Kilifi after a harrowing court battle.
The woman stated that she had lived on the property for the past 15 years claiming that her late husband purchased the land from a company whose directors were Azimio leader Raila Odinga and his wife, Ida Odinga.
Her husband, she lamented, purchased the piece of land from the company in 2007 after their retirement.
A Malindi court, however, ruled that the woman, originally from South Africa, did not own the 8.4-acre piece of land on which she and her late husband had already built six houses.
“We shared everything to do with the property, including all the paperwork and our original title deed, and eventually, the matter was in the appeal court in Mombasa.
“In February 2019, I went to the Kilifi lands department, and my application to transfer the land to my name was rejected. From there, I went straight to Malindi court,” the woman narrated.
The ruling was made after a petitioner claimed that the piece of land belonged to her, stating that she was registered on January 1984 as the lawful proprietor.
According to court records seen by Kenyans.co.ke dated August 5, 2022, the woman stated that her husband handled the transactions adding that she never filed a search of the company's directors.
Further, the records noted that the woman dealt with other individuals who represented the company and never paid any amount directly to the Odingas.
“On cross-examination, she stated that she bought the suit land from the company, that it was her late husband who handled the transaction, and that she never filed a search of the directors.
“On further cross-examination, she stated that they dealt with other representatives and not Hon. Raila Odinga and never paid any money to Hon. Raila Odinga,” Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 41 of 2012 & 11 of 2020 (Consolidated) states.
At the same time, the court papers detailed that the widow stated that she had not received the amount the court had earlier ordered to be refunded to her husband.
“...was shown the proceedings of the Criminal Revision No 42 of 2009 where the court ordered that the husband be refunded the money he had paid for the purchase price.
“She stated that the same was never refunded and also confirmed that she never appealed the decision for the refund,” the court documents detailed.
