A long-running land dispute in Thika has escalated into a fresh confrontation after Floriculture International Limited asked the Inspector General of Police to intervene, alleging that its property remains occupied despite court decisions rejecting challenges to its ownership.
In a letter dated October 9, 2026, the company accused Central Kenya Limited of refusing to surrender the disputed land and alleged that a Kiambu security official was frustrating enforcement efforts.
The accusations place renewed scrutiny on the enforcement of court orders, the conduct of public officials, and the protection of property rights in a dispute stretching back more than three decades.
Floriculture Seeks Police Intervention As Thika Land Dispute Raises Questions Over Court Enforcement ¶
Floriculture International Limited has asked the National Police Service to investigate alleged trespass and forcible detainer on Land Reference Number 7705/2 in Thika Municipality and facilitate recovery of vacant possession in accordance with the law.
In its October 9 letter, the company urged police commanders in Kiambu County and Thika to record statements from the parties, investigate the alleged occupation and recommend criminal charges to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) where evidence warrants prosecution.
The company also requested security during the lawful recovery of the property and measures to prevent further entry, construction, cultivation or removal of assets from the disputed land.
At the centre of the dispute is Floriculture's claim that a judgment delivered by Justice Francis Tuiyott on February 14, 2020, dismissed Central Kenya Limited's challenge to the charges, sale and subsequent transfer of the property.
According to Floriculture, the ruling affirmed the validity of the lenders' exercise of their statutory power of sale and rejected the case brought against the transaction. The company argues that the decision supports its claim to ownership and its entitlement to possession.
However, the dispute has continued through subsequent court proceedings, including a constitutional petition and an appeal. The existence of those proceedings makes it important to distinguish between judgments already delivered, orders currently in force and issues that may remain before appellate courts.
Floriculture Names Kiambu Security Official In Allegations Of Interference ¶
In its letter to the Inspector General, Floriculture alleged that it had served four orders on the Kiambu County security team but that enforcement efforts had been frustrated by an individual within the team whom it claimed had an interest in the matter.
The company named Deputy County Commissioner James Muiruri as an interested party and accused him of frustrating the process.
No immediate response from Muiruri was provided in the information available, and the allegation has not been independently established. His position on the accusations therefore remains unclear.
The claim nevertheless raises questions that warrant clarification from the relevant authorities. These include whether the orders were formally received, what action was taken in response, and whether any official decision prevented their enforcement.
Floriculture wants the police to provide written confirmation of the steps taken within 14 days.
The request places responsibility on the National Police Service to establish the facts surrounding the alleged trespass and determine what action, if any, falls within its mandate.
The company has also cited Articles 40 and 244 of the Constitution in warning that it may pursue further legal remedies if it considers its property rights and requests for police assistance inadequately addressed.
Three Decades Of Litigation Trace Back To Sh45 Million In Loans ¶
The dispute dates to June 1993, when charges were registered over the property in favour of Trust Bank Limited and Trust Finance Limited to secure facilities of Sh15 million and Sh30 million, respectively, advanced to Katka Islands Limited.
After the borrower defaulted, the lenders exercised their statutory power of sale. The property was subsequently transferred to Floriculture International Limited in May 1995.
Central Kenya Limited challenged the transaction in Nairobi High Court Civil Suit Number 3590 of 1995, alleging irregularities in the charges, sale, and transfer.
In a judgment delivered on February 14, 2020, Justice Tuiyott dismissed the suit after finding that Central Kenya had failed to prove its case. The court also held that the lenders were entitled to exercise their statutory powers of sale following the default.
Floriculture now argues that continued occupation despite that judgment undermines the practical value of a court decision in its favour.
The legal history, however, must be assessed alongside subsequent proceedings and the status of any outstanding appeal. The existence of an earlier judgment does not, by itself, establish that every later dispute has been resolved or that every enforcement measure requested by a party can proceed without observing applicable court orders and legal safeguards.
Fresh Tribunal Orders And A Struck-Out Petition Intensify The Dispute ¶
The latest developments include a ruling delivered on October 5, 2026, by a tribunal presided over by Joyce Osodo.
In Business Premises Rent Tribunal Case Number BPRT/E1109/2026, the tribunal ordered Peter Mwangi and Charity Wanjiku Muiruri to surrender vacant possession of premises identified as Block 8/264, previously known as Land Reference Number 7705, Thika Municipality, to Floriculture International Limited.
The tribunal also directed the Officer Commanding Station at Ngojiwa Police Station to enforce the vacant-possession orders and awarded costs of Sh25,000 against the two respondents.
Earlier, on March 23, 2026, the Environment and Land Court in Thika struck out a constitutional petition seeking to revisit ownership of the property.
The court found that the petition was res judicata, meaning the issues had already been determined, and constituted an abuse of the court process. It also discharged conservatory orders issued on October 30, 2025, and awarded costs to the third respondent/applicant.
The court further held that it could not sit on appeal or review a decision by a court of equal status, particularly while the dispute was the subject of a pending appeal before the Court of Appeal.
These rulings form part of the documented legal history, but their precise scope and interaction with any pending proceedings remain important when determining the next lawful steps.
Floriculture says it has exhausted available legal avenues and wants the police to help secure possession while the outstanding appeal proceeds.
The central question is whether the relevant authorities will act on the orders currently in force, investigate the allegations impartially, and ensure that any recovery of the property follows the law. The outcome will test not only the parties' competing claims but also the practical enforcement of judicial decisions in a land dispute that has persisted for more than 30 years.
