A 1.8-hectare Ruiru property once allotted to Mama Ngina Kenyatta and Kristina Wambui Pratt is now claimed by two rival companies. Both say they bought it from the same developer for KSh90 million. The court has frozen changes to its title, ordered the original certificate deposited in court, and allowed the rival claimant to remain in occupation.
A disputed Ruiru property with a connection to Mama Ngina Kenyatta has become the centre of a fierce ownership battle.
The 1.806-hectare parcel, known as RUIRU/RUIRU WEST BLOCK 7/2, traces its ownership history to an original allotment.
According to court documents, Mama Ngina and Kristina Wambui Pratt received the land on August 27, 1992.
They transferred it to Sapa Developers Limited on April 7, 1995.
Seventeen years later, two companies emerged with competing claims over the same property.
Both say they purchased it from Sapa Developers for KSh90 million in March 2012.
That extraordinary overlap lies at the heart of the dispute before the Environment and Land Court.
In a ruling delivered on November 9, 2026, Justice Jacqueline Mogeni declined to determine which company acquired the property lawfully.
Instead, the judge preserved the disputed land and its title pending a full hearing.
“The real contest is which of the two companies bearing that name was the purchaser,” the judge observed.
The case pits Gateway Malls Limited against Highgate Limited, formerly incorporated under the name Gateway Malls Limited.
The petitioner, Gateway Malls, was incorporated on February 21, 2011. Highgate’s predecessor company was incorporated on October 31, 2011.
The companies therefore carried identical names during the period surrounding the alleged purchase.
Highgate later changed its name to Highgate Limited on December 4, 2023.
Two Buyers
Gateway says it acquired the property from Sapa Developers on March 9, 2012.
Its director, Leipai Ole Tompoya, told the court that the company paid KSh90 million.
The company relies on an earlier title and deed plan to support its claim.
Highgate presents a competing account of the same transaction.
Its director, Joram Gatei Kamau Ndinguri, says his company bought the land from Sapa Developers.
He maintains that the original title issued on March 9, 2012, remains in Highgate’s possession.
The rival claims have produced a complicated paper trail. Gateway says its original title disappeared on February 28, 2017.
It was reportedly in the custody of its deceased director, Mary Wanjira Mwangi.
The company says it reported the loss at Ruiru Police Station.
It subsequently obtained a provisional title after publishing a loss notice. The relevant Kenya Gazette Notice No. 5441 appeared on June 9, 2017.
Highgate disputes that process. It argues that Gateway’s provisional certificate was issued on March 31, 2017, eight days before publication.
Highgate says that sequence violated Section 33(3) of the Land Registration Act.
That provision regulates replacement certificates after the loss or destruction of title documents.
Highgate also challenges documents used during Gateway’s subsequent title conversion.
These remain rival parties’ claims, not findings by the court.
Title Under Fire
The dispute escalated after the Lands Registry moved to revoke Gateway’s provisional title.
Gazette Notice No. 16414, published in December 2024, purported to revoke the certificate.
In January 2026, the Registrar of Titles reportedly directed the Ruiru Land Registrar to cancel entries.
A subsequent letter dated February 4, 2026, demanded return of the certificate of lease.
Gateway challenged those actions, alleging procedural irregularities and errors in the Gazette notice.
Its complaints included discrepancies in the company’s details, directors’ names, and property acreage.
The company also accused Highgate of using forged documents to reconstruct the land register.
Those allegations include a statutory declaration dated November 25, 2024, and an indemnity registered in March 2025.
The judge did not resolve those competing accusations.
However, the court found an arguable case that registry officials might have exceeded their statutory powers.
Sections 79 and 80 of the Land Registration Act govern rectification of land registers.
The judge emphasised that the registrar’s powers are limited, particularly where ownership is contested.
“The power to cancel a disputed registration therefore rests with the court,” Justice Mogeni stated.
The court consequently suspended Gazette Notice No. 16414 and the two subsequent registry letters.
It also barred relevant land officials from cancelling, revoking, or altering entries against the property.
Original Title
The ruling did not, however, hand possession to Gateway. The judge declined its request to restrain Highgate from occupying or dealing with the property.
Highgate told the court that it occupied the premises and had tenants. Gateway did not demonstrate that it was physically occupying the land.
The judge held that removing Highgate would overturn the existing position before ownership was determined.
Existing tenancies may therefore continue as usual.
Both companies are prohibited from selling, transferring, charging, or developing the property.
They cannot create new leases, fresh tenancies, or other interests pending determination.
The court also addressed the original certificate held by Wahome & Akedi Advocates.
Gateway had accused the firm of professional misconduct and conflict of interest.
It argued that partner Wangeci Wahome’s family connection to Lands Cabinet Secretary Alice Wahome raised concerns.
The judge made no finding on those allegations. Instead, the firm was ordered to deposit the original certificate in court within fourteen days.
READ ALSO: Uhuru responds to Ng’eno, Sudi after bile remarks on mother
The Deputy Registrar will hold the document pending further orders. Gateway’s request to have the certificate delivered directly to it was declined.
The company must also disclose the status of separate judicial review proceedings. The matter involves Thika ELC Judicial Review Case No. E005 of 2026.
The application’s costs will be determined in the main proceedings. Crucially, the ruling does not establish whether Gateway or Highgate owns the property.
For now, a parcel once linked to Mama Ngina Kenyatta remains locked in a legal contest. Its eventual ownership will depend on evidence tested during the full hearing.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
