A land dispute in Thika has intensified, with Floriculture International Limited accusing senior security officials in Thika West of obstructing court orders, protecting occupants of its property and failing to act impartially.
In a formal complaint dated October 21, 2026, addressed to Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja and Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen, the company accused Thika West Deputy County Commissioner James Muiruri Wanyoike of using his position to delay the enforcement of eviction orders against occupants of the disputed property.
Through its director, Abdirashid Abdul Sharifow, the company also named Thika Sub-County Police Commander John Kimanthi and Sub-County Criminal Investigations Officer Jacinta Ndavi, accusing them of failing to discharge their duties independently.
The complaint sets out the company’s allegations, which have not been independently verified. It does not establish that any of the officials committed an offence.
At the centre of the dispute is land identified as Thika Municipality Block 8/264, formerly registered as L.R. No. 7705. Floriculture International Limited says it acquired the property in May 1995 through the exercise of statutory powers of sale by Trust Bank Limited and Trust Finance Limited.
The company maintains that its ownership was upheld by the High Court in a judgment delivered on February 14, 2020, in Nairobi HCCC No. 3590 of 1995, Central Kenya Limited v Trust Bank Limited & 12 Others.
According to the complaint, Justice F. Tuiyott dismissed a challenge by the former owner, Central Kenya Limited, to the charges, sale and transfer of the property.
The court held that the charges were valid, that the lenders were entitled to exercise their statutory power of sale and that the former owner’s equity of redemption had been extinguished following the sale and transfer.
However, the court did not grant Floriculture International Limited’s counterclaim for eviction, leaving the company to pursue vacant possession through separate proceedings.
Central Kenya Limited subsequently lodged Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 284 of 2020, which the company says remains pending. Floriculture International Limited states that, to its knowledge, the 2020 judgment has neither been stayed nor set aside.
The company argues that the current occupants claim through the former owner and have no lawful basis to remain on the property.
Dispute over eviction orders ¶
Floriculture International Limited says repeated attempts to secure vacant possession have been frustrated by delays in enforcing court orders.
It cites orders issued by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal on April 16, 2026, in Case No. E463 of 2026, and October 5, 2026, in Case No. E1109 of 2026.
According to the complaint, both orders granted vacant possession, provided for eviction in default and expressly directed the Officer Commanding Station at Ngoigwa Police Station to enforce them.
The company says it served the orders on the police and other security officials, but no enforcement action followed while the orders remained in force.
It claims officers repeatedly cited the need for the Thika West Sub-County Security and Intelligence Committee, chaired by Wanyoike, to meet and determine when the evictions would take place.
The company argues that the delays gave the occupants time to obtain stay orders before enforcement could begin. It says both the April and October orders were stayed before any eviction action was taken.
It maintains that its complaint concerns the failure to act while the original orders were in force, not a demand that police disregard subsequent court orders staying their execution.
“The same excuse, producing the same result, order after order, cannot be a coincidence,” the company stated in the complaint, questioning the committee’s impartiality.
It further argues that Wanyoike’s role in determining when the committee meets has made the enforcement of court orders dependent on his decisions.
The complaint also refers to Thika ELC Petition No. E017 of 2025, in which the occupants filed a constitutional petition in the High Court at Thika.
According to the company, the occupants’ petition identifies the DCC as the officer responsible for planning and overseeing security arrangements for an eviction and maintains that no eviction can proceed before his committee meets.
Floriculture International Limited argues that this position places the committee’s deliberations at the centre of enforcement, yet the meetings have not resulted in action on the orders it obtained.
The company also accuses Wanyoike of directing police officers in the sub-county, arguing that Article 245 of the Constitution places command of the National Police Service under the Inspector General rather than the DCC.
Conflict of interest ¶
The company has called for an investigation into information it says it received suggesting that Wanyoike may have been promised a portion of the disputed land or another benefit by or on behalf of the occupants.
The complaint provides no independent evidence to substantiate the alleged promise.
Floriculture International Limited wants investigators to establish whether any benefit was offered or received and whether a personal interest influenced the DCC’s handling of the dispute.
It argues that, if established, the claims would raise questions about conflict of interest, abuse of office and the integrity of public administration.
The complaint also accuses Kimanthi and Ndavi of deferring to the DCC instead of independently discharging their responsibilities.
The company says the police commander failed to act on its requests for enforcement and ignored follow-up correspondence, while the criminal investigations officer failed to open investigations into complaints of trespass and forcible detainer.
It argues that both officers were aware of the High Court judgment and had been served with the eviction orders, but still took no action without the DCC’s approval.
The claims against the three officials require independent investigation and responses from those named.
Questions over police deployment ¶
Another major issue raised in the complaint is the presence of Administration Police officers on the disputed property.
Floriculture International Limited says the officers have been stationed on the land to guard it for the benefit of the occupants.
The company also claims the officers may be receiving payment for their presence, although it says it does not know who is paying them.
According to the complaint, the officers told the company’s representatives that they were not under the command of the Thika Sub-County Police Commander but answered to a “higher command”, which they declined to identify.
The company has asked the Inspector General to establish who deployed the officers, the authority under which they are operating and whether payments are being made for their services.
It has also called for their withdrawal if their presence is found to be unauthorised.
The complaint puts the deployment of public security personnel in private land disputes and the command structures governing their operations at the centre of the dispute.
Company invokes constitutional provisions ¶
In seeking action, Floriculture International Limited has cited Articles 245 and 239(3)(a) of the Constitution, arguing that police command rests with the Inspector General and that members of national security organs must not act in a partisan manner.
It has also cited constitutional provisions on integrity, public service, property rights, fair administrative action and access to justice.
The company maintains that court orders remain binding until stayed or set aside by a competent court, and that security committees may coordinate enforcement but cannot substitute their decisions for those of the judiciary.
The complaint cites Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567 and Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd v Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & Another [2005] eKLR in support of its position on compliance with court orders.
It also refers to Section 101 of the Penal Code and Section 46 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003, on abuse of office; Section 128 of the Penal Code on wilful neglect of official duty; and Section 117 of the Penal Code on conspiracy to defeat justice.
On the alleged promise of land or payments to officers, the company cites Section 6 of the Bribery Act, 2016. It also cites Section 91 of the Penal Code in relation to the occupants’ continued presence on the property.
The company argues that the conduct described in the complaint, if established, could attract criminal liability.
It has copied the complaint to the Director of Public Prosecutions, asking the office to consider directing investigations into suspected criminal conduct under Article 157(4) of the Constitution.
Demands for independent investigations ¶
The company wants the Inspector General to appoint investigators from outside Thika West to examine the conduct of Wanyoike, Kimanthi and Ndavi, including the alleged promise of land to the DCC.
It has also asked the Inspector General to establish who deployed the Administration Police officers, which command they answer to and who is paying them.
The company wants the officers withdrawn if their presence is found to lack lawful authority and police matters concerning the property transferred to the Kiambu County Police Commander while investigations are underway.
The company has asked the Kiambu County Commissioner to investigate the DCC’s conduct, require him to recuse himself from deliberations concerning the land and stop issuing instructions to police officers on the matter.
It has also called for consideration of his removal from Thika West and any disciplinary action warranted by the findings.
It has further demanded a written explanation from the Thika police commander detailing the action taken on each eviction order served on the police, why no action was taken while the orders were in force and the authority behind the deployment of Administration Police officers to the property.
The complaint was also copied to the Director of Criminal Investigations, the Independent Policing Oversight Authority and the Officer Commanding Police Division in Thika.
The company has given the authorities 14 days from receipt of the complaint to respond, warning that it will refer the matter to the Commission on Administrative Justice and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission if it does not receive a satisfactory response.
