Labour CS Florence Bore on Sunday, June 18, cleared the air over her involvement in the controversial purchase of a Ksh120 Million Karen home confirming that the acquisition process was legitimately underway.
In her statement, bore noted that the two parties entered into a 90-day agreement in which she argued that she had paid a down payment of 10 per cent allowing her to move in.
Bore, therefore, refuted claims that she forcefully moved into the mansion insisting that she entered into a lawful buyer-and-seller agreement and was meant to pay the remaining amount in due time.
It was, however, unclear whether the agreement was anchored on a Ksh90 million or Ksh120 million price tag.
The controversy began after the MP's wife claimed that she was shocked to find a heavy security presence at her house in Karen after she sent a contractor to facilitate the cleaning exercise at the mansion.
The contractor was allegedly assaulted and locked out of the premises, which she claimed was already occupied by the Cabinet Secretary.
Below is Bore's Full Statement
My attention is drawn to the viral media reports on the sale and purchase transaction of a house in Karen between myself and a company associated with (an MP from Murang'a)
I entered into an agreement to purchase the property at a negotiated and agreed purchase price. Resultantly, I signed my part of the agreement for sale and transmitted the agreement through my lawyers to the vendor's lawyers for signing on their part.
Their lawyers acknowledged receipt of the signed agreement for sale by stamping on the forwarding letter by my advocates.
In compliance with the respective clauses of the agreement, I sourced a 10 per cent deposit from my Sacco and paid directly to the Vendor's lawyers' account via RTGS. It was a term in the agreement for sale that the completion period of the transaction was 90 days from the date of signing the agreement.
We agreed that I take occupation of the house while I retreated to seek a mortgage facility for the balance, which I legitimately expected to obtain within the agreed transaction period of 90 days.
Unfortunately, in an astounding wave of events, in less than 30 days of the agreement, the MP and his wife attempted to unlawfully evict my children from the house while I was out of the country.
They were accompanied by armed goons necessitating the need for police presence on the premises. For a colleague in leadership to take advantage of my absence from the country to run a hate campaign instead of waiting to engage me upon return is not only queer but baffling.
The dramatised and sensational allegations are fabricated to unlawfully dissociate from the agreement ostensibly because they have found a "better deal".
The transaction was a private engagement between a willing seller and a willing buyer, both parties duly represented by lawyers in total conformity with the law. The media pitch was therefore unwarranted and ancillary to the transaction.
