Court Finds Reyhan Petroleum in Contempt Over Nairobi Land Title Fight

Kenyan oil marketer and petroleum credit provider Reyhan Petroleum Limited faces contempt proceedings after a Nairobi court found it breached a land settlement.

A court-approved land deal has turned into a fresh legal headache for Reyhan Petroleum Limited.

The Environment and Land Court in Nairobi found the petroleum company in contempt over a settlement dating back nearly five years.

Justice Charles Mbogo also ordered Reyhan to surrender an original title deed it continued holding.

The ruling follows a bitter dispute with businessman David Rimau Gichuhi over two Nairobi properties.

The properties are identified as Dagoretti/Riruta/7167 and Dagoretti/Riruta/7168.

Reyhan Petroleum operates in Kenya’s petroleum industry and appears on sector licensing records.

The company also appears among members of the Oil Suppliers and Marketers Association of Kenya.

But its latest legal battle has nothing to do with fuel supplies.

Instead, it centres on land, leases, and an original title that remained in Reyhan’s possession.

Deal Falls Apart

The dispute began with a settlement reached by the parties on September 30, 2021.

The Environment and Land Court adopted that agreement as its order on November 19, 2021.

The settlement was designed to end the underlying dispute between Gichuhi and Reyhan.

Its terms created a simultaneous exchange involving the two properties.

Reyhan would re-transfer parcel 7167 to Gichuhi, who would simultaneously grant fresh leases over 7167 and 7168.

That word, “simultaneously”, later became central to the court’s reasoning.

The agreement also fixed detailed terms for the proposed leases.

The first lease would run for 20 years from December 2, 2014.

Another 10 years would follow under similar terms, subject to applicable rent increases.

A further 10-year period would then operate under rental terms determined by Gichuhi.

The agreed rent began at KSh240,000 monthly before changing in June 2021.

From then on, Reyhan would pay KSh270,000 monthly for two and a half years.

Rent would thereafter increase by five per cent every two-and-a-half years.

Reyhan would also meet the costs of preparing and registering the fresh leases.

Most importantly, Gichuhi was to retain the original title after registration.

That arrangement was supposed to close the dispute, but implementation instead stalled for years.

Blame Game

By May 2025, Gichuhi had had enough and filed a contempt application against Reyhan.

He accused the company of disobeying the November 2021 court order despite knowing its requirements.

Gichuhi wanted Reyhan declared in contempt and its directors and shareholders summoned.

He also sought possible imprisonment for up to six months.

Reyhan rejected the accusation and launched a counterattack in October 2025.

The company asked the court to declare Gichuhi the contemnor for failing to grant fresh leases.

It sought his imprisonment for six months or a KSh10 million fine.

Reyhan argued that it had already re-transferred parcel 7167 into Gichuhi’s name.

That, it suggested, left Gichuhi responsible for completing the remaining obligations.

Gichuhi disputed that version and blamed Reyhan for delaying the re-transfer.

He further accused the company of withholding the original title needed for lease registration.

According to Gichuhi, discussions at Ardhi Sasa had contemplated surrendering the original documents.

The title dispute consequently became the pressure point in the settlement.

Title Becomes Key

Gichuhi filed another application on February 2, 2026, targeting the original title for parcel 7167.

He asked the court to order Reyhan to surrender it immediately.

He also sought safeguards against transactions using the withheld title.

Gichuhi said Reyhan had only partially honoured the settlement by re-transferring the property.

The company, however, allegedly continued holding the original title.

Reyhan maintained that it had initiated the re-transfer as required.

It also claimed several leases had been served on Gichuhi.

The company further argued that the 2021 consent had cancelled all earlier leases.

Any earlier lease relied upon by Gichuhi was therefore allegedly void from the beginning.

Justice Mbogo instead focused on the actual court order and its precise requirements.

The judge found its terms clear, particularly regarding the simultaneous transfer and leasing obligations.

The court found Reyhan completed the re-transfer only after Gichuhi filed contempt proceedings.

That timing weighed heavily against the company.

Justice Mbogo concluded that Reyhan was responsible for the delay.

The judge then turned to the unresolved title issue.

Although 7167 was registered in Gichuhi’s name, Reyhan continued holding its original title.

The company had not adequately explained why it retained the document.

Justice Mbogo therefore found Reyhan in contempt of the November 19, 2021, order.

Court Draws Line

The judge stressed that court orders cannot be treated as suggestions.

Justice Mbogo cited Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited on that principle.

The Court of Appeal had emphasised that obedience to court orders remains mandatory.

The ruling also cited Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd v Minister for Information & Communication.

That decision similarly underscored the obligation to obey orders until they are discharged.

The principle proved decisive in this dispute.

Reyhan’s attempt to have Gichuhi declared a contemnor was dismissed.

Gichuhi’s contempt application, meanwhile, succeeded.

The court issued Reyhan a notice to show cause against punishment for contempt.

That did not amount to an immediate jail sentence.

Instead, Reyhan must explain why punishment should not follow.

Justice Mbogo also ordered the company to hand over the original title for Dagoretti/Riruta/7167.

Gichuhi was further awarded the costs of all three applications.

The ruling leaves Reyhan facing a potentially more serious next phase.

The court has already found the company in contempt.

What remains is whether punishment will follow.

READ ALSO: Mathare Landowner Demands KSh64.4 Million Over Safaricom Base Station

For Gichuhi, the decision removes a major obstacle to asserting control over his property.

For Reyhan, a settlement intended to end litigation has produced another courtroom battle.

After years of mutual accusations, the court has now placed responsibility firmly on the company.

The original title must be returned. The contempt finding stands.

And Reyhan must now answer for its conduct.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.