The High Court has dealt a setback to Makadara Member of Parliament George Aladwa after rejecting his attempt to terminate an Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) lawsuit seeking to recover a disputed piece of land in Nairobi.
In a ruling delivered on November 9, 2026, Justice Mohammed Kullow dismissed a preliminary objection filed by Aladwa and other defendants, clearing the way for the land recovery case to proceed to a full hearing.
The commission has sued the legislator, a private company, members of his family and a Savings and Credit Cooperative Society (SACCO) over allegations of fraud and illegal acquisition of the property.
The defendants had sought to have the entire case struck out before the court could examine the evidence, arguing that the proceedings were legally defective, incompetent and filed outside the statutory 12-year limitation period for land recovery claims.
They also questioned EACC's constitutional authority to institute the proceedings, effectively challenging the commission's right to pursue the disputed property.
However, Justice Kullow rejected their arguments, finding that none provided sufficient grounds to terminate the case before a full hearing.
Why Aladwa Failed to Stop EACC From Recovering the Land ¶
The ruling is significant because it preserves EACC's ability to pursue the disputed property through the courts despite the defendants' attempts to challenge its legal mandate.
At the centre of the dispute was whether EACC had the authority to institute proceedings for the recovery of public property or whether such responsibility belonged exclusively to the National Land Commission (NLC).
Aladwa and the other defendants argued that the commission had overstepped its constitutional mandate by taking up a matter they believed fell within the NLC's jurisdiction.
EACC countered that Section 11(1)(j) of the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act expressly empowers it to institute court proceedings for the recovery or protection of public property.
Justice Kullow agreed with the commission, ruling that the NLC's mandate did not prevent EACC from independently pursuing legal proceedings to recover public property.
"The institution of the present proceedings cannot therefore, at this stage, be said to amount to an usurpation of the mandate of the National Land Commission," the judge ruled.
Court Rejects 12-Year Limitation Argument ¶
The defendants also relied on the 12-year limitation period applicable to certain land recovery claims, arguing that EACC had filed its case outside the legally prescribed timeframe.
However, the judge declined to terminate the proceedings on that basis, pointing to the allegations of fraud raised by the commission.
Justice Kullow observed that determining when the alleged fraud was discovered would require an examination of evidence, making it inappropriate to declare the case time-barred at the preliminary objection stage.
The ruling effectively means the defendants cannot use the limitation argument to prevent the court from examining the circumstances surrounding the disputed land transactions.
The court will have to consider the evidence presented by both sides before determining the merits of the recovery claim.
Judge Dismisses Challenge Against EACC's Lawyer ¶
The defendants further challenged the authority of the advocate representing EACC, questioning whether the lawyer had been properly authorised to institute the proceedings.
Justice Kullow dismissed that objection, finding that the advocate possessed a valid practising certificate and was qualified to practise under the Advocates Act.
The judge also observed that questions about whether EACC had adequately investigated the property transactions and whether the proceedings amounted to an abuse of court process could not be conclusively determined without examining evidence.
Ultimately, the defendants failed to establish grounds for terminating the case before trial.
The ruling does not amount to a finding that Aladwa or the other defendants fraudulently acquired the property. Those allegations remain subject to determination during the full hearing.
