A dispute over a parcel of land in Nairobi’s Starehe area has taken a new turn after Safaith Center for Disabled and Orphans sought investigations into the conduct of police officers at Pangani Police Station, accusing them of failing to enforce court orders intended to protect property the organisation says was allocated to it more than three decades ago.
The institution, which supports orphans and children living with disabilities, says that activities on the disputed land have continued even after the Environment and Land Court issued an injunction restraining interference with the property and subsequently directed the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) at Pangani to enforce the orders.
The organisation now wants the National Police Service Internal Affairs Unit to establish what action police took after receiving the court documents and whether any officers neglected their duties.
Documents supplied to the Nyakundi Report identify the disputed property as Land Parcel No. Nairobi/Starehe/367, situated in Starehe Sub-County. Safaith maintains that the land was allocated to the organisation in 1991 to support its activities involving vulnerable children and says it possesses an allotment letter, a Kenya Gazette notification and a registered title deed supporting its claim.
The ownership dispute is before the Milimani Environment and Land Court under Case No. ELCLC/E014/2026, involving James Ogola Ali and Florence Lavogo Ahura, who are suing on behalf of the institution, and Abd igaye Fatuma, identified in the court documents as Abdigaye Fatuma.
The case has produced several court orders, correspondence from lawyers and requests for intervention by public authorities, with the institution stating that the protection granted by the court has not translated into effective action on the ground.
The first significant order among the supplied documents was issued on February 3, 2026, by Justice L. G. Kimani of the Environment and Land Court. The court restrained the defendant, her relatives, servants, agents and anyone acting under her authority from entering, trespassing, building or interfering with the disputed parcel pending further proceedings. The same order directed the respondent to file and serve a response within 14 days, allowed the applicants to file a supplementary affidavit and set out timelines for written submissions. This was an interim injunction intended to preserve the property while the dispute remained before the court, rather than a final determination of who legally owns the land.
The order stated:
THAT in interim, an order of temporary injunction is issued restraining the Defendant/Respondent, her relatives, servants, agents or any person acting under her authority restraining her from entering, trespassing, building, entering or interfering in any way with land parcel No. Nairobi/Starehe/367 situated in Starehe Sub-County-Nairobi.
Safaith complains that the injunction did not bring an end to the stated interference. According to the organisation, construction activities continued, individuals remained on the property and its representatives experienced intimidation and threats. These claims prompted further legal action, leading to another order on March 31, 2026, this time issued by Justice Charles G. Mbogo. The judge certified an application filed on March 30 as urgent, gave the respondent 15 days after service to file a response and directed that the matter be mentioned on July 8 before Justice Kimani. More importantly for the institution's present complaint, the court expressly directed the OCS Pangani Police Station to enforce the earlier injunction.
The March 31 order reads in part:
THAT and in the meantime, an order is hereby issued directing the OCS Pangani Police Station to enforce the injunctive orders issued by this Honourable Court on 3rd February 2026 restraining the Defendant/Respondent, her relatives, servants, agents or any other person acting under her authority from entering, trespassing, building or interfering in any way with Land Parcel No. Nairobi/Starehe/367 situated in Starehe Sub-County, Nairobi.
The distinction between the two orders is important. The February order restrained interference with the land, while the March order specifically brought Pangani Police Station into the enforcement process. It is this second directive that Safaith says police officers have failed to implement effectively. The organisation maintains that the relevant orders were formally served on the responsible officers and that it retains evidence of service. The documents supplied include correspondence bearing receiving stamps, though a full account of the police station's actions after receiving the orders has not been provided.
By April 23, 2026, the institution's lawyers, Musungu Pekke & Co. Advocates, had written to the Nairobi Regional Police Commander requesting intervention. The letter, signed by advocate Fredrick T. Musungu, referred to the interim orders and the subsequent enforcement directive, asking the regional police leadership to ensure that the OCS at Pangani complied with the court's instructions. The lawyers stated that the defendant remained on the disputed property and had continued to harass, intimidate and assault their client and employees.
In the letter, the advocates stated:
We regret to note and bring to your attention that to date, the Defendant is still on the suit land and has continued to harass, intimidate and assault our Client and her employees.
The lawyers requested enforcement of the court order and asked the police command to acknowledge receipt of the correspondence. Another letter dated April 22, 2026, was addressed to Omwoyo, Momanyi Gichuki & Co. Advocates, identified as representing the opposing party. In that communication, Safaith's lawyers reminded the other side of the injunction and the police enforcement directive, alleged continued interference with the land and warned that further breaches could lead to contempt of court proceedings. The letters show that the organisation was pursuing enforcement through both the police command and the opposing party's legal representatives.
The documents also reveal a separate dispute involving attempts to close Safaith Center and School and remove structures from the same property. In proceedings before the Milimani High Court, identified as Judicial Review Case No. HCJR/E112/2026, the institution challenged a notice of immediate closure dated April 10, 2026, and an enforcement notice dated March 31, 2026, requiring the removal of structures described in the notice as illegal. On April 14, Justice W. Musyoka certified the matter as urgent and granted leave for the institution to pursue judicial review proceedings, with the leave operating as a stay in the terms specified in the application.
The judicial review documents identify two decisions that Safaith sought to challenge. The first was the notice directing the immediate closure of the centre and school, while the second concerned the removal of structures developed on Nairobi/Starehe/367 within 14 days. The court granted leave for Safaith to seek orders of certiorari and prohibition, allowing it to challenge the administrative decisions through the appropriate legal process.
The latest development came on October 14, 2026, when Safaith prepared formal complaints seeking scrutiny of the handling of the dispute. One letter addressed to the Director of Public Prosecutions requested a review of reported threats, removal of property and possible offences concerning the land. The document bears a stamp indicating receipt by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions on October 14. The organisation asked for consideration of the reported incidents and guidance on the appropriate investigative and prosecutorial process where the evidence supports criminal action. This request is separate from the civil dispute over ownership, which remains a matter for the Environment and Land Court.
A second complaint addressed to the Internal Affairs Unit of the National Police Service focuses specifically on Pangani Police Station. Signed in the name of Sarah Esendi, identified as the institution's land custodian, it asks investigators to establish whether the OCS received the orders, when they were received, what enforcement steps followed and whether officers responded appropriately to reports of continued interference. The organisation also wants investigators to examine possible neglect of duty, misconduct or inappropriate involvement in the dispute, with disciplinary action where wrongdoing is established.
The complaint states:
The Centre reports that construction activities and other interference with the disputed land have continued. The Centre further reports the removal of its gate, the presence of private security personnel, and threats of intimidation and violence.In light of the express direction to the OCS Pangani Police Station, the Centre seeks clarification regarding the actions taken by the responsible officers after service of the orders and notification of the reported incidents.
The organisation's request to the Internal Affairs Unit continues:
We respectfully request the Internal Affairs Unit to:Establish whether the OCS Pangani Police Station received the relevant court orders and when they were received.Review the steps taken by the responsible officers in response to the orders.Examine any reports made by the Centre and the police response to those reports.Determine whether the officers complied with applicable legal requirements and police procedures.Investigate any evidence of neglect of duty, misconduct, or inappropriate involvement in the dispute.Take appropriate administrative or disciplinary action if wrongdoing is established.Provide written acknowledgment and a complaint reference number.
Safaith has also made it clear that its complaint against the police is not intended to replace the land case or determine ownership through an administrative investigation. The organisation recognises that questions about title documents, competing ownership claims and the interpretation of court orders belong before the relevant courts. What it wants the Internal Affairs Unit to examine is the police response to the orders already issued and to the incidents reported after those orders were served.
Under Kenya's National Police Service Act, the Internal Affairs Unit is responsible for receiving and investigating complaints against police officers, including allegations of misconduct. Where an investigation establishes wrongdoing, the appropriate disciplinary processes can follow. The Independent Policing Oversight Authority also has a statutory role in examining police misconduct and failures in policing, making the concerns raised by Safaith relevant to institutions responsible for ensuring that police officers act lawfully and accountably.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has a different responsibility. It can consider prosecution where investigations disclose sufficient evidence of criminal offences, but it does not determine civil ownership of land. Claims involving threats, assault, damage to property or other alleged offences must be investigated on their own evidence, independently of the competing claims to the property. Likewise, a claim that someone has breached an injunction may require appropriate proceedings before the court that issued it, including an application for contempt where the legal requirements are met.
For Pangani Police Station, the immediate issue is the enforcement history. The March 31 order expressly directed the OCS to act, and the institution says it served the relevant documents. The police should be able to explain whether the orders were entered into the station's records, which officers were assigned to handle them, whether any visits were made to the property and what was established about the alleged continued construction, removal of the gate and threats. If there were legal or practical obstacles to enforcement, those should also be documented rather than left unexplained.
The institution's lawyers have already written to the regional police leadership, the opposing party's advocates and the relevant public offices. The correspondence, court orders and receiving stamps supplied to Nyakundi Report provide a documentary account of the steps Safaith says it has taken to protect the property.
An organisation established to assist orphans and children with disabilities says it has repeatedly sought protection through the courts and police, yet continues to report interference with the property.
The central question is why Safaith Center for Disabled and Orphans says interference with Nairobi/Starehe/367 has continued after a court expressly directed Pangani Police Station to enforce an injunction. The answer lies in the court record, the proof of service, the police enforcement records and the findings of any investigation into the reported incidents.