A dramatic Court of Appeal ruling has blown open what judges described as a web of ghost land transactions surrounding a prime KSh3 billion property in Nairobi’s upscale Runda estate. At the centre of the dispute is businessman Peter Burugu, the owner of Kiambu Mall and Bia Tosha Distributors Limited, who claimed ownership of the vast parcel.
After six years of litigation, the appellate court dismantled that claim in a sweeping 135-page judgment, pointing to forged signatures, a company registered on a weekend in 1955, and a share transaction that allegedly took place more than five decades before the company even existed.
The decision by Justices Patrick Kiage, Weldon Korir, and George Odunga marked the final blow to a case that had already suffered setbacks at the Environment and Land Court.
In firm language, the judges concluded that the title relied upon by Burugu rested on glaring irregularities that could not stand under legal scrutiny. Their findings now stand as one of the clearest judicial rebukes of questionable land dealings in recent years.
Ghost Land Transactions Exposed in KSh3 Billion Runda Dispute
The Court of Appeal carefully retraced the chain of ownership and found inconsistencies that it said went to the heart of the claim. Central to the dispute were two companies: Jumchem Healthcare Ltd, also known as Runda Palms, and William & Kennedy Limited (WKL). Court records showed that both entities were registered on a weekend in 1955, a detail the judges found highly irregular given that government registries did not operate on weekends at the time.
The court treated this anomaly not as a clerical oversight but as a red flag that cast doubt on the authenticity of the registration documents. From there, the inconsistencies deepened. Francis Ng’ang’a, identified as the Managing Director of WKL, claimed he acquired the disputed land by purchasing shares in WKL in January 1904. However, official records indicated that WKL was incorporated in 1955, a full 51 years after the alleged share acquisition.
The judges described this timeline as impossible and incompatible with any lawful corporate transaction. They noted that one cannot purchase shares in a company that does not exist and that such a claim significantly undermined the credibility of the ownership narrative presented before the court.
Further damaging the case was testimony from a Chief Inspector of Police and a Superintendent of Police, who told the court that signatures attributed to former Commissioner of Lands James Raymond Njenga and lawyer Fred Ngatia had been forged.
The alleged forgery of senior officials’ signatures raised serious concerns about the authenticity of the land documents used to support the claim. The appellate judges relied heavily on this expert evidence in reaching their conclusion that the title was tainted by fraud.
Dead Company and Fabricated Paper Trail
In its detailed analysis, the Court of Appeal painted a picture of a paper trail riddled with irregularities. The weekend registration of companies in 1955, the impossible 1904 share purchase, and the forged signatures did not appear as isolated errors but as interconnected elements of what the judges saw as a carefully constructed yet fundamentally flawed ownership structure.
The court emphasized that Kenya’s land registration system depends on the integrity of official records. When documents show internal contradictions or rely on demonstrably false timelines, courts have a duty to intervene. In this case, the judges found that the chain of transactions failed to demonstrate a clean and lawful transfer of title and instead reflected what they described as serious irregularities that invalidated the claim.
By upholding the earlier ruling of the Environment and Land Court, the Court of Appeal reinforced the principle that possession of a title deed alone does not shield an owner from scrutiny where evidence of fraud or illegality emerges.
Government Acquisition Claim Collapses Under Evidence
Burugu and his firm also argued that Post Bank Credit had expressed interest in acquiring the Runda land in 2007, presenting this as proof that their ownership was recognized and valuable. However, documentary evidence from the Department of Government Valuation and the Kenya Urban Roads Authority contradicted that assertion.
The agencies confirmed that no intention to acquire the land had ever been formalized and that no acquisition process had been initiated. The appellate court found that this claim lacked factual support and further weakened the credibility of the ownership case presented before it.
After six years of litigation, the Court of Appeal’s decision appears to close one chapter in the high-stakes dispute over the Runda property. However, William & Kennedy Limited has indicated that it intends to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a possible final legal showdown.
For now, the ruling stands as a powerful statement against ghost land transactions and questionable documentation in high-value property deals. The judges made clear that courts will interrogate suspicious timelines, examine company records, and rely on forensic evidence where necessary to protect the integrity of land ownership. Whether the Supreme Court will take a different view remains to be seen, but the appellate decision has already delivered a decisive blow to the KSh3 billion claim over the Runda land.
