A nearly two-decade battle over 96 acres of land hosting two Nairobi public schools has returned to the Supreme Court, with the anti-corruption watchdog seeking to stop the case before it proceeds further.
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has filed an objection to a Petition of Appeal by Huelands Limited and Afrison Export Import Limited, challenging the July 3, 2026 decision of the Court of Appeal over disputed land parcel LR No. 7879/4 in Ruaraka.
The parcel partly hosts Drive In Primary School and Ruaraka High School.
In the objection filed on August 4, EACC, listed as the seventh respondent in Supreme Court Petition No. E025 of 2026, argues that the two companies have failed to meet the constitutional threshold required to invoke the apex court’s jurisdiction.
The Commission wants the petition struck out, accusing the companies of attempting to introduce new constitutional questions while asking the Supreme Court to revisit factual findings that have already been settled by the lower courts.
“The Petition of Appeal is misconceived, frivolous, and vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the Court, as it fails to satisfy the threshold for invoking this Honourable Court’s jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution,” EACC advocate Jackie Kibogy states.
At the heart of the dispute is about 13.5 acres occupied by the two public schools and whether the land was private property subject to compulsory acquisition and compensation or had already become public land after being surrendered to the Government.
Court records show Afrison Export Import Limited and Huelands Limited acquired the larger 96-acre parcel from Joreth Limited in 1981.
The companies were closely associated with the late businessman Francis Mburu, who featured prominently in compensation claims and subsequent court proceedings over the property.
The dispute intensified after the National Land Commission moved to compulsorily acquire about 13.77 acres occupied by Drive In Primary School and Ruaraka High School.
The NLC valued the portion at Sh3.269 billion and subsequently paid Sh1.5 billion to the two companies, leaving a balance of about Sh1.769 billion.
The payment triggered public controversy, parliamentary scrutiny and a series of legal proceedings over whether public funds had been lawfully used to compensate the companies for land already belonging to the State.
EACC challenged the legality of the payment, arguing that the portion occupied by the schools had already been surrendered to the Government as a condition attached to the subdivision of the original parcel.
The issue eventually found its way through the Environment and Land Court and the Court of Appeal.
The latest chapter began with a 2018 reference before the Environment and Land Court filed by then-NLC chairperson Prof Muhammad Swazuri.
The reference sought, among other issues, to establish whether the process through which the land occupied by the schools was acquired complied with the Constitution and whether public money had been lost.
The Environment and Land Court subsequently determined issues surrounding the disputed land, prompting Huelands and Afrison to move to the Court of Appeal.
On July 3, 2026, the appellate court ruled against the two companies, holding that approximately 13.5 acres occupied by the schools was public land and that the compulsory acquisition and Sh1.5 billion compensation were unlawful.
EACC subsequently announced that it would pursue recovery of the Sh1.5 billion.
The companies have now moved to the Supreme Court through Petition of Appeal No. E025 of 2026, challenging the Court of Appeal decision.
EACC’s objection is built around nine grounds, principally arguing that the appeal does not raise a proper constitutional question capable of triggering the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a).
The Commission accuses the appellants of seeking to introduce constitutional issues that were neither pleaded nor canvassed before the lower courts.
According to EACC, the companies are relying on constitutional provisions that were not considered or determined by the Environment and Land Court or the Court of Appeal.
The watchdog argues that the Supreme Court cannot be used as a forum to introduce fresh constitutional questions that were never litigated before the courts below.
EACC also objects to the companies’ challenge to the finding that the 13.5 acres were surrendered as a condition attached to the subdivision of the original parcel.
The Commission says both the Environment and Land Court and the Court of Appeal made concurrent findings on the issue.
It argues that the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction does not extend to re-evaluating evidence merely because an appellant is dissatisfied with findings made by the lower courts.
“Having made concurrent findings of fact on that issue, the Petition of Appeal seeks to invite this Honourable Court to re-evaluate the evidence and interfere with those findings, contrary to its appellate jurisdiction,” EACC states.
The Commission therefore wants the Supreme Court to reject what it considers an attempt to turn a factual dispute into a constitutional appeal.
Another central issue in the objection is the legal distinction between surrender of land and compulsory acquisition.
The companies have challenged the consequences of the lower courts’ finding that part of the property had been surrendered, apparently maintaining that the taking of the land amounted to compulsory acquisition for which compensation was payable.
EACC rejects that argument, maintaining that surrender and compulsory acquisition have different legal consequences.
“Surrender and compulsory acquisition are distinct legal concepts recognized under the Constitution and the law,” the Commission states.
It relies on Article 62(1)(c) of the Constitution, which provides that public land includes land that has been surrendered to the State by virtue of a condition imposed by a law or instrument.
EACC’s position is that the legal character of the 13.5 acres cannot be changed from surrendered land to compulsorily acquired private property simply because the companies disagree with the lower courts’ findings.
The Commission maintains that the issue was fully considered and determined by the courts below and cannot now be reopened through a fresh constitutional argument before the Supreme Court.
The Ruaraka dispute has attracted considerable public interest because of the billions of shillings involved and the fact that the contested property hosts public schools.
The controversy has also placed the conduct of public institutions under scrutiny, particularly the National Land Commission and its handling of compensation claims.
The legal battle has consequently drawn in several government agencies and individuals.
Besides EACC, the Supreme Court petition lists the National Land Commission, Nairobi City County Government, the Director of Public Prosecutions and Patrick Thoithi Kanyuira among the respondents.
EACC is asking the Supreme Court to strike out the Petition of Appeal in its entirety.
Alternatively, the Commission wants the court to dismiss the appeal with costs, arguing that it is otherwise devoid of merit and does not disclose a genuine constitutional question warranting the intervention of the apex court.
At the centre of the objection is the constitutional limit on the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
EACC’s case is that the apex court is not another forum for parties to reopen factual disputes or introduce constitutional questions that were never litigated and determined by the courts below.
The companies, however, have moved to the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Court of Appeal decision, setting the stage for another legal battle over the disputed Ruaraka property.
The immediate issue before the Supreme Court is therefore whether Huelands and Afrison have satisfied the constitutional threshold for the court to hear their appeal.
If EACC succeeds, the petition will be struck out without the Supreme Court determining the substantive issues raised by the two companies.
