A land dispute in Thika has taken a new turn after Floriculture International Limited accused Thika West Deputy County Commissioner J. M. Wanyoike of using the county security administration to interfere in a property dispute that the company says has already been determined through several court proceedings.
The confrontation intensified on October 28, 2026, when Wanyoike issued summons requiring six individuals to appear at his office the following morning to receive a decision made by the Kiambu County Security and Intelligence Committee.
Floriculture International has rejected the summons, arguing that the Deputy County Commissioner cannot use an administrative security committee to reopen questions concerning land ownership or enforcement of court orders.
The dispute concerns Thika Municipality Block 8/264, previously known as L.R. No. 7705, a property Floriculture International claims to own through a registered title. In documents submitted to senior government officials, the company maintains that its ownership has been upheld through litigation and that persons occupying the land have continued resisting eviction despite court orders.
Its latest complaint raises serious questions about the involvement of national government administrators and police officers in a private property dispute, particularly where the company says that the officials responsible for maintaining security have instead obstructed enforcement.
The summons issued on October 28 bears the letterhead of the Ministry of Interior and National Administration, State Department for Internal Security and National Administration, and is signed by Wanyoike in his capacity as Deputy County Commissioner for Thika West Sub-County. The letter, referenced CORR 3/3 VOL.II/108, was addressed to Margaret Njeri Muiruri, Jayne Wangui Gachoka, Peter Gicheru Muiruri, Margaret Muthoni Wangari, Pius Njuguna Gachoka and Abdirashid Abdul Sharifow.
According to the summons, a meeting involving the Kiambu County Security and Intelligence Committee and the Thika West Sub-County Security and Intelligence Committee had been held at the County Commissioner's office earlier that day. The county committee reportedly directed the sub-county committee to summon the six individuals and communicate its decision to them.
The letter stated:
In a meeting of the Kiambu County Security and Intelligence Committee together with the Thika West Sub-County Security and Intelligence Committee held today in the County Commissioner's office, the County Committee directed the Sub-County committee to summon you and communicate the decision of the County Committee.
The recipients were instructed to appear at the Deputy County Commissioner's office on October 29, 2026, at 11 a.m. However, the summons did not disclose the decision that was to be communicated, explain the basis on which it had been reached or identify the specific matters the recipients were expected to address.
Floriculture International responded through a formal protest dated October 29, addressed to the Cabinet Secretary for Interior and National Administration, the Director of Criminal Investigations, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Inspector General of Police and the Kiambu County Commissioner. The letter, signed by company director Abdirashid Abdul Sharifow, challenged both the procedure adopted by the security committees and the involvement of the Deputy County Commissioner.
The company argued that it was being summoned to receive a decision affecting its property without having been invited to participate in the meeting at which that decision was made. It also complained that the summons failed to disclose the committee's findings, leaving the recipients uncertain about the issues they were expected to address.
In the protest letter, Floriculture International stated:
We decline to appear before any forum convened, chaired or presided over by the DCC in respect of this matter, for the reasons set out below.
The company explained that it had already lodged a complaint against Wanyoike with the Inspector General of Police, the Kiambu County Commissioner, the OCPD Thika and the Director of Public Prosecutions. It accused the Deputy County Commissioner of having a conflict of interest in the dispute and questioned why he continued participating in decisions affecting the property while those complaints remained unresolved.
The earlier complaint, dated October 21, 2026, contains extensive accusations against Wanyoike and Thika Sub-County Criminal Investigations Officer Ms Jacinta Ndavi. Floriculture International alleges that the two officials have acted in a manner favourable to persons occupying its land, despite the company's claim that courts have repeatedly rejected challenges to its ownership.
The company says it purchased the property in 1995 following the exercise of a statutory power of sale by the Trust Finance Limited, a transaction it maintains was subsequently challenged by Kenya Limited through its directors. According to Floriculture International, a judgment delivered on February 14, 2020, by Justice F. Tuiyott dismissed the challenge and upheld the company's position. The complaint further refers to subsequent court proceedings and eviction orders that the company says were intended to enable it to recover possession of the land.
Among the proceedings cited are Nairobi High Court Petition No. E017 of 2025, decided on March 23, 2026, and two matters before the Business Premises Rent Tribunal, identified as Case Nos. E463 of 2026 and E1109 of 2026. The company states that orders issued in April and October 2026 directed the eviction of occupants and authorised police assistance where necessary.
Floriculture International says that efforts to enforce the eviction orders have repeatedly encountered resistance from local security officials. In its October 21 complaint, the company says that police officers had accompanied court bailiffs to the property but later stopped enforcement after being informed that the Sub-County Security and Intelligence Committee needed to meet and determine when the eviction could proceed.
The company questioned why a security committee would be required to make such a determination after a court had already issued an eviction order. It argued that security arrangements may be necessary during enforcement, but that an administrative committee should not substitute its own decision for that of a court.
Officers stationed at the property have prevented the company's representatives from accessing the land while allowing occupants to remain there. Floriculture International says that some officers said they were acting under instructions from a higher authority, although the company acknowledges that it does not know who issued those instructions.
More seriously, the company says that Wanyoike had shown partiality towards the occupants and that the security committee had effectively become an obstacle to enforcement. It also claimed that the Deputy County Commissioner had previously expressed interest in acquiring part of the disputed property. A possible personal interest in a matter being handled through his public office.
Floriculture International wants investigators to establish whether there has been misconduct, abuse of office, improper interference with court orders or any inappropriate relationship between public officials and the occupants. The company has requested that the Inspector General of Police direct an investigation into the conduct of Wanyoike, Ndavi and other officers connected to the dispute.
It has also asked the Kiambu County Commissioner to examine the Deputy County Commissioner's handling of the matter and determine whether he should continue participating in decisions concerning the property while complaints against him remain pending.
The October 29 protest introduces another issue concerning the right to fair administrative action. Floriculture International cites Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, arguing that persons affected by administrative decisions are entitled to lawful and procedurally fair treatment, including appropriate notice and an opportunity to respond.
The company maintains that the October 28 summons did not satisfy those expectations because it merely required the recipients to attend a meeting to receive a decision already made by the county security committee. It further questioned whether the committee had any authority to determine matters concerning property ownership, possession or enforcement of eviction orders.
The protest also raises concerns about the Deputy County Commissioner's dual position in the dispute. Floriculture International argues that Wanyoike should not preside over a meeting affecting the property while he is personally named in a complaint concerning the same matter. It has therefore demanded that any administrative communication be handled through an impartial officer rather than through the official whose conduct it has challenged.
The company has requested written confirmation within seven days that the Deputy County Commissioner will no longer participate in proceedings concerning the disputed property while the complaints against him are under consideration. It has also demanded disclosure of the county security committee's decision, the grounds on which it was reached and the authority under which the committee acted.
For Floriculture International, the immediate concern is that a dispute it considers settled by the courts is continuing through administrative meetings and contested enforcement arrangements. For the public, the more significant issue is whether security committees and police officers are exercising their powers within the law when dealing with property disputes involving competing interests.
The central question is what decision the Kiambu County Security and Intelligence Committee made on October 28, why the affected parties were summoned to receive it without its contents being disclosed, and whether the Deputy County Commissioner should have participated in the process while facing a complaint concerning the same property.
Until the relevant authorities provide those answers, the confrontation between Floriculture International and the Thika West security administration will continue to raise questions about the enforcement of court orders, impartiality in public office and the limits of administrative authority in land disputes.