Former Gatundu North MP Kariuki Muiruri's activities on a 17-acre parcel of land valued at Ksh300 million have been frozen.
A ruling issued by Thika Law Courts barred the former lawmaker from accessing the parcel until a case pitting him against another tycoon, Viktah Maina, popularly known as Maathai, is heard and determined.
The courts suspended agents under Muiruri from carrying out any activities including developing, leasing and transferring portions of the land.
Documents that were presented in court showed that the former lawmaker had sold the parcel to Maathai through his company Mapema Holdings for Ksh9 million back in 2008.
The parcel in question is located at Kiganjo in Thika Municipality of Kiambu County.
"The application is supported by the affidavit of Viktah Maina Ngunjiri sworn on April 5, 2019, who averred that pursuant to clause 4 of the agreement, the plaintiff paid a deposit of Ksh2 million to the second respondent upon execution of sale agreement the first defendant through the second respondent deposited the original title to the parties advocate on execution of the said agreement and payment of deposit.
"Further that the balance of Ksh7 million was paid to the second defendant vide bankers cheque on diverse dates as per terms of sale agreement," ruled the judge in part.
The complainant in the case claimed that Muiruri's team had reportedly continued working on the property after he allegedly colluded with Land officials in the county to cancel the transfer of the land.
“On October 4, 2016, the Chief Land Registrar, working in cahoots with first, second and third defendants fraudulently, illegally and without any colour of right cancelled the transfer of the suit property to the plaintiff/applicant.
"Subsequently, the first defendant misrepresented to the Land Registrar that the original title of the suit property was lost and caused the same to be advertised in the Kenya Gazette No. 4031 of July 4, 2018," stated Judge Lucy Gacheru.
"The Chief Registrar without exercising due diligence, issued the first defendant with a provisional certificate yet they were all well aware that the original one was with the applicant,” she added.
Muiruri, in his defence, claimed that the suit was based on wild allegations and admission of criminal ventures.
