A legal fight over a prime Nairobi property linked to the estate of the late businessman Gerishon Kamau Kirima has taken another twist after the Court of Appeal stopped any fresh transactions on the land until an appeal is heard.
The Court of Appeal judges Luka Kimaru, Munyao Sila and Dr J.O. Okello on July 31 2026 also ordered Corner Place Investment Limited to deposit Sh750,000 within 30 days before enjoying the protection of the court.
The dispute pits Corner Place Investment Limited against Teresia Wairimu Kirima, the administrator of Kirima’s estate. Also named in the case are Nairobi City County, the Chief Land Registrar and the Ministry of Lands.
The case revolves around ownership of a parcel of land in Nairobi’s City Park Estate.
The estate says Kirima held the genuine lease over the property after receiving a 99-year lease in 1981. It accused the company of holding a fraudulently obtained parallel title.
Corner Place, however, insists it legally bought the property from a third party whose name appeared in the land register at the time of purchase.
The Environment and Land Court sided with Kirima’s estate. It cancelled the company’s title, directed the Chief Land Registrar to register the estate as the owner, barred the company from interfering with the property and awarded the estate Sh5 million in damages.
Corner Place moved to the Court of Appeal arguing that the estate was in the process of disposing of the property. It claimed the land had also been leased to third parties who had put up structures and were already running businesses there.
The company warned that recovering the land would become impossible if the appeal eventually succeeded after the property had changed hands. It also maintained that it was an innocent purchaser who bought the land without knowledge of any defect in the title.
Teresia Wairimu opposed the application, stating that the company had waited nearly three years after the High Court judgment before seeking relief from the Court of Appeal.
She also said she had occupied the property since 1996 and that land could not disappear because it is an immovable asset.
According to her, the presence of business operators on the property did not change its permanent nature. She further argued that the application was only filed after legal costs had been assessed and a demand for payment issued.
The three-judge bench found that the intended appeal raised serious questions that deserved to be heard. The judges noted that both parties held titles to the same property and the key question was which one was genuine.
“We are persuaded that the applicant has an arguable appeal,” they ruled, noting that both sides held titles to the same property and the central question was which of the two was genuine.
They also observed that the company appeared to hold a title that looked valid on its face, making its appeal arguable. The court further held that allowing the property to be sold or charged before the appeal is determined could defeat the entire case.
If that happened and the company later won the appeal, the judges said, the victory could end up being meaningless. To preserve the property, the judges ordered that the land records at the registry remain unchanged.
They also barred all parties from selling, charging or otherwise dealing with the land until the appeal is heard.
The court maintained the current position on occupation and use of the property, noting that Teresia Wairimu is in possession and has allowed third parties to operate businesses there.
The judges also prohibited any new structures from being erected on the land.
