Court Orders KDF to Vacate Prime Land Opposite Ulinzi House After 13-Year Dispute

The Environment and Land Court has ordered the Department of Defence to vacate a parcel of land opposite Ulinzi House on Nairobi’s Lenana Road. The court found the military’s occupation of the property was unlawful and upheld the ownership claim of private developer Acres and Homes Limited.

The judgment ends a 13-year legal battle. The court ruled that Acres and Homes had proved lawful ownership while the State failed to demonstrate that the plot was a public road reserve. It declared the Department of Defence’s entry and continued occupation unlawful and directed the military to hand over vacant possession to the company.

The dispute began in 2013 when Acres and Homes sued the Attorney-General, stating that Defence officials had taken over the land. Company director Esther Njeri told the court that the firm bought the parcel for Sh140 million in May 2012 from Impulse Developers Limited. The title traced back through earlier transfers to Orbit Express Limited, the first registered owner in 2000.

Njeri said the property stood opposite Ulinzi Gate and had been valued at about Sh250 million. The company planned to construct residential rental houses after obtaining approval from the then City Council of Nairobi. It expected monthly rental income of Sh250,000. Instead, Defence officials fenced the land, erected a gate, installed a parking sign and converted it into a parking area for visitors to Ulinzi House, blocking any development.

The developer sought vacant possession, general damages for trespass and compensation of Sh250,000 per month for lost income from 31 May 2012 until the property was returned. Supporting documents included a valuation report, a 2013 development approval, correspondence with the Ministry of Lands, demand letters, a statutory notice and photographs of the occupation.

The Attorney-General, representing the Defence department, denied the claim and filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation of the company’s title. The government argued the parcel had always been a public road reserve and was never available for private allocation. It described the original allocation and subsequent transfers as fraudulent, illegal and irregular. A caveat had earlier been registered because of the land’s proximity to Defence headquarters, and national security concerns were cited as justification for opposing development.

After reviewing the evidence the court found the government had not produced sufficient material to support those allegations. It stated that the material relied upon did not satisfactorily demonstrate that L.R. No. 209/14030 was reserved for public use or that the company’s title was procured through fraud or illegality.

The developer, by contrast, produced a traceable chain of title supported by the grant, transfer records, valuation documents, development approvals, official correspondence, statutory notices and photographs. The court held that the plaintiff’s title remained valid and entitled to legal protection. In the absence of any lawful interest justifying the occupation, the continued presence of the Defence department constituted trespass.

The government’s counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety. The court, however, declined the company’s claim for compensation for missed rental income.

The ruling reinforces the principle that private titles backed by proper documentation enjoy protection under the Land Registration Act unless clear evidence of fraud or illegality is presented. It also underscores the limits of claims based on proximity to sensitive installations when the underlying public-reserve status is not proved.