A Chinese firm acquired a prime property in Nairobi free of charge after its owner failed to claim it for 12 years.

Environment and Land Court Judge Christine Atieno Ochieng stated that China Jiangsu International Economic-Technical Cooperation Corporation East African Company (CJIETCCEA) had occupied the property for 12 years without interruption, hence, had acquired it through adverse possession.

Consequently, according to the Judge, the firm should be deemed and registered as the owner of the land.

“I find that the plaintiff has proved that it has occupied land reference number 3734/428 openly, uninterruptedly, notoriously and without permission from the owner for more than twelve years. I find that the plaintiff should hence be declared to have acquired proprietary and ownership rights over the parcel of land reference number 3734/428, through adverse possession,” said Justice Atieno.

A government gazette notice indicates that the property is 0.4609 hectares, which is approximately one acre and in Nairobi.

The company (CJIETCCEA) sued China Jiangsu International Economic Technical Co-Operation Corporation Limited (CJIETCCL) arguing that it occupied the land in 2009 after finding it abandoned and unoccupied.

In his affidavit, Guo Haudong, told the court that the company had been running a hardware shop and a construction materials yard.

He stated that the firm that owned the land, promoted by Chinese nationals residing in Kenya at the time, had gradually ceased operations, abandoned the suit land, and had never challenged his company’s occupation.

Haudong asserted that CJIETCCEA also used land for on-site residential premises for its staff.

The court heard that the company had obtained water, electricity, and an internet connection for the land, hence, the occupation is open to the public eye.

To support his case, Haudong filed affidavits sworn by Peter Ngure, Mary Njeri Wambugu and James Makori Nyamao, all of whom aver that they successfully applied for jobs in CJIETCCEA and were appointed in 2012.

He admitted that his company entered the land without the authority of CJETCCL. To demonstrate that the land has been developed, he produced photos taken over the years since occupation in 2009.

The court heard that despite the other company being invited to participate in the case, it never appeared or replied. It emerged that the case had been advertised at a local newspaper.

Justice Atieno said that the clock started running from 2009. She observed that the grace period given to the land owner to flush out the occupant lapsed in 2021.

“From the photographs presented as annexures, it is clear the plaintiff is on the suit land. Further, from the affidavits from the plaintiffs employees who have been working on the suit land from 2012, which are not controverted, I have no reason to doubt the plaintiff’s averments,” she ruled.