Chinese man says he owns land near State House

Related image

A prime land near state House is being claimed ownership by a Chinese businessman who was in court this week declaring to have bought it in 2013.

Yu Donghui was, however, unable to produce documents proving ownership of the piece of land valued at Sh 2 billion.

Donghui Testified before High Court Judge Elijah Ombaga, stating that he had purchased the prime property in 2013 with the intent of putting up a business centre

The Chinese investor outlined that he had acquired the property through Catham Properties Limited which had bought the land and had plans to put an ultra-modern business centre.

Two other companies; Delta Haulage and Samvo Limited are also said to claim ownership of the prime property.

Image result for images of kenya state house

 

The investor explained he had nothing to prove ownership as his title deed was cancelled by the chief lands registrar in 2014 after its authenticity was challenged.

The Chinese investor narrated that his title was revoked after Delta Haulage Director Mr Ali Mohammed Egal challenged its authenticity.

He added that, in the end, the only valid title held by the Ministry of Lands was that of Delta Haulage Services Limited until Samvo Limited also moved to challenge its authenticity.

It was also alleged that former Cabinet Secretary witnessed the groundbreaking ceremony for the construction of the business centre.

Image result for Images of kenya Land title deed deals signing
Mr Ketembo Mabibo (left) from Malindi receives a title deed from President Uhuru Kenyatta

Other news sources say Mr Donghui told the court that former Lands Cabinet Secretary Charity Ngilu  witnessed the ground-breaking ceremony before she became Kitui  governor.

Other respondents in the suit named are Samvo Limited, NLC, Chief Land Registrar, Catham and vendors who gave Mr Donghui the deed in 2014, one Mr Christopher Mugove Wamae and Alexander Kung’u Maina.

The Attorney General, defending the Chief Land Registrar told the court that the Chinese investor could not be compensated for his loss from taxpayers’ money since the deal was a case of fraud.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *